|
|
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:50 |
 I believe science CAN prove most parts of religion incorrect as literally true. Science does not allow resurrection from death. Science doesn’t allow for alchemy. Nor flying horses. Not being able to disprove god is different.>> You seem to think science is not only static but infallible too. It’s neither! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 10:29 |
@stalhandske Which I can only perceive as modern science does not rule out God being behind (the cause of) the Big Bang, but does rule out God being the source of life. I think my misperception on what you had said was due to this statement: <<I thought I said that Genesis can only be interpreted symbolically! 'Formed from the dust of the ground' is to me fully compatible with life arising from inorganic and organic substances'>> Perhaps you meant to say “inorganic or inanimate substances?” Either way, I think your position regarding modern science and creation is (correct me if I’m wrong.) 1) Modern science does not rule out God being the cause of the Big Bang. 2) Modern science does rule out that God created life. Or, if God created life, He only created the first single-celled organism. I think those positions cannot be reconciled with these verses from Genesis, no matter how much symbolism is read into these verses: “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.” (Genesis 2:7) “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) In Genesis 2:7, God is *directly* giving man life (breathing into his nostrils, which is quite specific) and making him a “living soul.” In Genesis 1:26-27, God is making man in His image, which I think we would agree is far beyond a single-celled organism. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 10:55 |
I suggest that these are false assumptions. I suggest that the purpose of Genesis chapter One is to tell the reader WHY the world was created, not HOW. Now, let's read it and see if it make sense from that perspective... Genesis ch. 1 breaks naturally into two parts. Phase 1 Day 1 God creates light and separates Light from Darkness Day 2 God separates the waters above from the waters below Day 3 God separates the dry land from the seas Notice the progression, from 'way out at the limits' to 'drawing near to the centre'. Phase 2 Day 4 God creates the Sun, Moon and stars to populate the Light and the Darkness. Day 5 God creates birds and fish to populate the sky and the seas Day 6 God creates animals and humans to populate the dry land. Again, there is a progression from the distant to the 'right here'. Remember that in Hebrew, ‘to separate’ also means ‘to dedicate’. Thus in Numbers 8:14, “You shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine.” So the first three days are all about ‘separating’ or ‘dedicating’ the different parts of Creation. Like ceremonially purifying different parts of a Temple. The second set of three days is about filling these dedicated parts with creatures. Like putting the worshippers in the body of the building, the choir to either side, and then the priests around the altar. All in order of holiness, from the least holy and therefore most distant from the Holy Place, to the nearest to the Most Holy. Everything has been made holy, prepared for the Seventh Day, for the Great Act of Worship which will include all Creation and all creatures in it! This pattern is emphasised by the repeated phrases “And God said…” “and it was good.” This corresponds to the pattern of worship in which a priest makes an announcement, declares a blessing or offers a prayer, and the worshipers answer with a set response. Compare this to the traditional Litany (available online, for example see “The Book of Common Prayer” and read the Great Litany and following), with roots going back all the way to the re-dedication of the People in Deuteronomy 27. Thus the Creation Account tells the reader that the purpose of all of Creation is a preparation for an act of WORSHIP. THAT is what Genesis chapter one is all about. Not Evolution, not Day-Age Theories, not 'Progressive Creation', none of which were even imagined at the time of writing. Coram would do well to read Genesis for what it is telling him, not for what he wants it to say. Let Genesis set its own agenda, not the modern reader looking for ammunition to fight modern battles.>> But what about chapter 2, Bob? The creation account doesn’t end in chapter 1. How does *your* interpretation of the creation account in Genesis explain this verse in chapter 2? “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.” (Genesis 2:7) Is breathing in someone’s nose the highest form of worship? Perhaps you could start a new trend where everyone in church breathes into each other’s noses! But seriously. I stand by what I said last night - your symbolism is way out there, way off the reservation and, imo, completely unjustified in that no other part of the Holy Bible is so symbolic as to render words in a passage completely devoid of their meaning. I also stand by the belief that what you’re suggesting is highly irresponsible and dangerous because you could apply that same wild symbolism to any part of the Bible, given enough time and imagination. Did you come up with that interpretation on your own or is it from another source? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 11:42 |
Ok. So the theory of evolution is an educated guess? I only bring it up because it’s the subject of the thread you’re commenting in. <<Science is better at proving than disproving for obvious reasons.>> So we went from science making “educated guesses” to science “proving” something? That was pretty fast. <<Prove an intelligent space slug with 12 heads who lives at the center of the sun isn’t controlling us all. See. Impossible.>> Right. But there’s no evidence for that. There is evidence - and a lot of it - for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. <<Science can’t disprove that god made everything look exactly like the big bang and evolution.>> Everything doesn’t look *exactly like* the theory of evolution. In fact, the only evidence you have for the theory of evolution is a couple of questionable transitional fossils. Does the Cambrian explosion look *exactly like* the theory of evolution? Does the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record look *exactly like* the theory of evolution? Does the complexity of the cell and DNA look *exactly like* the theory of evolution? Do irreducibly complex organs look *exactly like* the theory of evolution? <<Science can’t disprove god created anything in anyway.>> Right. <<Science simply looks at the evidence and attempts to find theories that best describe what they see.>> Ok, but science shouldn’t become so wedded to a theory that evidence that contradicts the theory is dismissed or jammed into the theory as if one was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Such is the case with the theory of evolution - the theory is believed by many “scientists” to be true, no matter what. <<The entire problem is there’s a mismatch of expectations. Coram wants a TRUTH to explain everything.>> I don’t want a TRUTH to explain everything. I acknowledge there *is* a truth that explains everything. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) <<His blithe talk of ‘proof’ and what he believes constitutes ‘proof’ is all the evidence we need.>> First, I’ve never said God can be proven or that “proof” exists for God. I’ve said evidence exists for God (mostly for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ) but I don’t view evidence and proof as synonyms. Belief in God will always require a certain degree of faith, which means it’s not proven. <<The rest of us look for rational explanations, knowing that many will need revision, and some are likely wrong.>> But you don’t look for, or consider, the existence of a supernatural realm, despite the (admittedly not prevalent) evidence for it. You seem to think everything must have a naturalistic explanation discernible by our five senses. That is extremely limiting. <<We are ok with that, constantly looking to punch holes in our theories to find the flaws and improve.>> If you think scientists are “constantly trying to punch holes” in the theory of evolution, I think you’re very mistaken. They’re quite dogmatic about the theory - so much so, that an organization (dissentfromdarwin.org) was formed, practically begging scientists to scrutinize the theory. <<Coram’s beliefs allow no flaws and no room for improvement.>> Because God is without flaw or room for improvement. <<For this reason, argument is futile.>> I agree with that. <<We’re looking for different things. One looks for truth knowing they’ll probably never find it.>> As long as you reject Jesus Christ, you’ll never find truth. I agree with this as well (that atheists will never find truth as long as they remain atheists.) <<One thinks he’s found Truth and just wants to shout it from his>> I have found truth and I don’t “shout” it as much as relate it. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 16:44 |
Evolution Theory 23 October 23:11 (Sorry, I'm not sure how to provide a direct link) This is only the briefest analysis of what is really a very sophisticated piece of literature. I could go into it in greater depth in several places to show how it holds Babylonian religious concepts up to derision, how it has layers of implications when read in the context of other scriptures, etc. It only appears 'primitive' if it is read without context and as a literalist narrative. And it ISN'T 'explaining what they didn't understand'. It is explaining the purpose of Creation in terms that they DID understand, if you read it as an educated sixth-century-B.C. Babylonian Jew rather than a twentieth-century American tradesman. This is what the historical-critical method can do if used in proper exegesis, instead of relying on fundamentalist credulity. I can understand why you might think that Christianity is a pile of infantile children's stories, because that is too often the face that is presented; just as too many fundamentalists think that Science is a Godless conspiracy aimed at perverting their children. But if you want to know what Christianity, or Islam, or anything else REALLY is, then don't rely on descriptions by their enemies or the propaganda of their extremists. Go to their mainstream advocates.>> Bob, I don’t see this post in the Evolution theory thread at all. But I read it in the Evolution theory cont. thread (in a post you made an hour or so ago) so it’s not a big deal; I just don’t see it where (and when) you said it was. I’d offer these comments, though: • Your interpretation of Genesis 1 is hardly mainstream. In fact, I’d be curious if you could cite a single Bible commentator or Christian denomination that supports or agrees with it. • You can play that sort of wild symbolism game with any piece of writing given enough time and imagination. • Do you think the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was symbolic and He really wasn’t born of a virgin? • Do you think the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was symbolic and He really wasn’t Resurrected in bodily form? • Do you think the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit is symbolic and that God’s Holy Spirit really doesn’t live within believers? • Do you think the miracles Jesus Christ performed during His earthly ministry (i.e. raising three people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, numerous healings, multiplying loaves and fishes, etc.) were symbolic or do you think they actually happened as presented in the Gospels? • A Catholic friend of mine once said that his priest discouraged people from reading the Bible because he didn’t think they could understand it. I hardly think that is pleasing to God. In fact, that kind of arrogance and pride - that only certain people can understand Scripture, and certainly not commoners - is detested by God. • You seem, imo, to have a great deal of disrespect for the Scriptures in that you rewrite them as science fiction entertainment, mock the numerous Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, discount (or don’t understand) the influence of God’s Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture, etc. But I’d be curious as to your responses to the queries above and whether you came up with your interpretation of Genesis 1 on your own or whether it’s from another source (and if so, what the source is.) Also, how do you explain Genesis 2:7 in the realm of your symbolism? Thanks. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 18:37 |
Bob, I would suggest this is another example of your discounting (or not understanding) the role of God’s Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture. Earlier examples were you saying the author of Job couldn’t possibly have known detailed facts about constellations nor could the prophets have known centuries in advance details about the coming Messiah. With their own limited understanding they couldn’t. But with God’s Holy Spirit guiding and enlightening them, they could. You seem to have a very secular and carnal understanding of Scripture, when Scripture is best understood on a spiritual level with the realization that, yes, it was written by men, but men under the guidance, influence and control of God’s Holy Spirit. And the best thing a reader of the Bible can do is not to study commentaries and analysis about passages in the Bible as though they were preparing for a final exam, but to ask God to give them discernment and wisdom to understand the Scriptures and to bring the Scriptures to life for them. God is real, Bob. God answers prayers. Would love to see your responses to the queries I posed to you. Have a great evening. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 18:40 |
BTW, I read “In a Sunburned Country” many years ago and loved it. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 18:58 |
You might find these articles interesting. From gotquestions.org: What does it mean that the Bible is inspired? When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books. While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary inspiration.” That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God. The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how to be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need? Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse helps us to understand that even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote. Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law...” (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark, because it is the very Word of God. Because the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, we can conclude that they are also inerrant and authoritative. A correct view of God will lead us to a correct view of His Word. Because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely perfect, His Word will by its very nature have the same characteristics. The same verses that establish the inspiration of the Scriptures also establish that it is both inerrant and authoritative. Without a doubt the Bible is what it claims to be—the undeniable, authoritative, Word of God to humanity. www.gotquestions.org Also from gotquestions.org: What does it mean that the Bible is God-breathed? In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul states, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” This is the only use in the Bible of the Greek word theopneustos, which means “God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God,” but other scriptural passages support the basic premise of Scripture being inspired by God. The power of the breath of God in divine inspiration pervades Scripture. God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam (Genesis 2:7), and Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:22). In 2 Peter 1:21 we are told that “prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Here we see the truths of Scripture described as coming directly from God, not from the will of the writers He used to record them. Peter notes that Paul writes “with the wisdom that God gave him” and that failure to take heed to these messages is done at the peril of the readers (2 Peter 3:15–16). Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit, who gives it to us “in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:13). In fact, the Berean believers faithfully used the inspired Word of God to check Paul’s adherence to the Word as they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Faith is central to how anyone receives the validity or value of God’s inspired Word because “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The “spiritual man” is the one who has been given the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8–9) for the salvation of his soul. Hebrews 11:1 tells us, “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” There is a righteousness in the gospel revealed by God in the Scriptures, but our righteousness comes and is maintained by and through faith alone. “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17). Although 2 Timothy 3:16 may be the only place in the Bible where the phrase “God-breathed” is used to describe the Word of God, Scripture is replete with similar claims. These are actually God’s words reminding us that His truth and love can be found there to guide us in all aspects of life. Perhaps James has the final word about the nature of Scripture (and many other things) when he proclaims, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). www.gotquestions.org |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 21:39 |
Coram: <<<Are you suggesting that modern science does not rule out God?>>> Stal <<I am indeed, and I have been saying this for years - also in the various GK fora!>< Coram <I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that modern science did not rule God as being the source or catalyst of the Big Bang, but did rule out God being the source of life. Unless one wants to take the kind of absurd position that God created life, but only the first single-celled organism. Then after creating the first single-celled organism, God kicked back and let the theory of evolution take over.> It is not easy to understand this passage. All I can say for sure is that modern science has no tools to rule out God in any part of creation of this world or evolution on this planet. Coram: <But that runs into the problem of God saying in the creation account in Genesis: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)> OK, right. In my understanding that is qute consistent with what I have said before. Coram: <So we should clarify.> Stal: <I’m aware (and have been for quite some time) that modern science does not rule out God as being responsible for the Big Bang.> Coram: <But are you saying that modern science does not rule out the source of God being the source of life? It appears you are since I believe, in an earlier post, you stated (paraphrasing) that modern science did not rule out life coming from life. So that leaves modern science’s position (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that God may be responsible for the Big Bang and may be responsible for life, but if He’s responsible for life, it’s only the first single-celled organism.> Yes, I AM saying that modern science has no way or method to rule out 'the source of God being the source of life'. <if He’s responsible for life, it’s only the first single-celled organism.> I am afraid I need to make a hypothesis here (since I don't KNOW). If God exists and He made the first unicellular organisms, then it is no big problem to hypothesise that he also predicted their evolution forward...> <Which runs into the problem of how to reconcile that view with Genesis 1:26-27 (quoted above.) So I still think the creation account in Genesis is incompatible with the theory of evolution, no matter how much symbolism is read into the former.> I see no problem. If you see problems, please let us know specifically.>> ************************** ************************** This is my basic point. And I don’t want to get into a whole confusing mish-mosh of re-posting posts with multiple arrows to indicate who said what, so I’ll just write my response as a summary. The theory of evolution says life evolved from a single-celled organism. The origin of that living single-celled organism, according to the theory of evolution, is unknown. So… Modern science believes, God may be: * Responsible for the Big Bang and nothing else. * Responsible for the Big Bang and the creation of the first living single-celled organism and nothing else. I believe both propositions are incompatible with these verses from the creation account in Genesis: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) “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.” (Genesis 2:7) The theory of evolution says the creation of man was the result of an unguided process and blind chance (random mutations and natural selection.) Those verses say otherwise. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 25-Oct-21, 10:28 |
From: Coram Re: Above queries As stalhandske is fond of saying when one of his queries goes unanswered for more than 20 minutes, “I note I have received no reply!” “What I detest most is the running away with the tail between the legs!” 😂 But seriously, I understand why you didn’t answer those queries above. If you say you believe in the Virgin birth, miracles and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, you alienate yourself from your atheist pals ‘cause they’ll think you’re nuts. If you say you don’t believe in the Virgin birth, miracles and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, you’re essentially saying you’re not a Christian because Christianity is based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The real identity of Jesus Christ - mere mortal or Son of God - is where the rubber always meets the road. I can say without equivocation or hesitation that I believe in the Virgin birth, miracles and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as that God’s Holy Spirit indwells believers when they accept and believe in Christ. I think you ought to consider meditating on this verse, Bob: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 25-Oct-21, 19:07 |
<Stal: Why not? Why is this absurd?> Don’t you think there is an enormous difference between humans and animals? Is there any question or doubt that humans are much, much more advanced than animals - and I’m not talking about morality, loyalty, ethics, self-sacrificial love etc.; many animals have (and have exhibited) those qualities in spades. I’m talking about intellect, ability to create, ability to solve problems, etc. If the theory of evolution is correct, why is there this incredible gap between what humans are capable of and what animals are capable of? When humans landed a manned spacecraft on the moon in the 1960s, shouldn’t animals have been close behind? Shouldn’t a monkey have said, “If only we had another two years!” I think (at least to me) that humans are far, far more advanced than animals - it’s not even remotely close - and the idea that God didn’t create humans apart from animals is ridiculous. Do you think any animal comes close to rivaling humans for dominance on this planet? Forget about whether humans being dominant is good - I think in a lot of ways, it’s not. But just focus on how dominant humans are on this planet over animals. Now an atheist can say (and has said,) “Well, put a human being alone in the forest or alone swimming in shark-infested waters and see how dominant they are.” But that’s the point. Human beings built boats and log cabins (in part) to avoid predators. Why I say all this is why I believe the idea that God did not create human beings separate and apart from animals is ridiculous. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 07:17 |
We’re different and unique. Just like EVERY other critter. We’re definitely not ‘better’ or ‘more advanced’ than other living things!!! Pure human arrogance.>> If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you’d have found your response is to a proposition that you devised, otherwise known as a straw man. Perhaps you should re-read this paragraph that I wrote: <Is there any question or doubt that humans are much, much more advanced than animals - and I’m not talking about morality, loyalty, ethics, self-sacrificial love etc.; many animals have (and have exhibited) those qualities in spades. I’m talking about intellect, ability to create, ability to solve problems, etc. If the theory of evolution is correct, why is there this incredible gap between what humans are capable of and what animals are capable of?> See the part where I say “I’m talking about intellect, ability to create, ability to solve problems, etc.”? That has nothing to do with eyesight, speed in running, longevity, size or ability to hold one’s breath. When a sperm whale builds a skyscraper or puts another sperm whale on the moon, get back to me. When a cheetah develops the ability to communicate with another cheetah from thousands of miles away, let me know. And if you don’t think we’re “better” (your word, not mine) than animals, why do you eat animals? Why do you kill animals that inconvenience you? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 07:35 |
Glad we agree, though man is not “the crown of evolution.” He’s created by God in the image of God. <<Yet, if you look with care, you will find analogous huge differences among (other) animals. For example, between the mouse and the chimpanzee, or the mouse and the spider.>> You can think those are analogous huge differences. I disagree. Humans put a man on the moon, developed the ability to communicate with one another from thousands of miles away, built skyscrapers, developed the ability to capture and save moments in time, etc. No animal is even close to that. And I could cite more examples, but I think you understand the point. <<Humans are indeed far far more advanced than the most advanced animals. There is no question about that even though 'advanced' is actually a very interesting concept here. If we look ONLY at the basic biochemistry and biophysics of humans and apes (or pigs for that matter) there is hardly ANY difference. The point is that they are basically exactly the same! THAT is amazing, don't you agree?>> Not sure I agree with this (I’ll get back to you on that because I think you’re greatly overstating the similarity) but even if true, and I don’t agree it is, that really has nothing to do with why humans are so much more dominant than animals. This, however, does explain it: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28) <<Andrew, I can understand your statement in some ways. But don't you agree that in stating that you are interpreting God's intentions in deciding what solution is ridiculous?>> Not really because I think God’s intention regarding creation is clear from the Holy Bible. <<Apart from my conviction that you don't really know what God intended,>> Sure I do. I believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant, infallible and immutable Word of God. I’ve said that more than once and I think I said it pretty recently. <<for the present discussion I think we can conclude that modern science does not exclude a God. Can we agree on that?>> We can agree that modern science does not exclude a “god” but does exclude the God of the Bible (i.e. the real God.) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 08:56 |
What do you make of this article? I’m only copy-and-pasting the first part of it because it’s so long, but the conclusion is that humans and chimpanzees are nowhere near genetically similar to the degree evolutionists claim. Anyone who’s interested in the full article, which really gets into the weeds, can click the link at the end of this excerpt. The article’s too long to post. From genesisapologetics.com: One of the great trophies that evolutionists parade to prove human evolution from some common ape ancestor is the assertion that human and chimp DNA are 98 to 99% similar. People quote this statistic in hundreds of textbooks, blogs, videos, and even scientific journals. Yet any high school student can debunk the “Human and Chimp DNA is 98% similar” mantra that this chapter covers. Why does this matter? We know that genes determine body features from gender to hair color. If we are genetically related to chimps, some may conclude that humans should behave like animals, with no fear of divine justice. But if we all descended from Adam, not from animals, then common animal behavior such as sexual promiscuity cannot be justified on these grounds. This has been a primary foundation for the mistreatment of humans worldwide by genocidal political leaders and governments over the past 150 or so years. One highly reputable study showed that the leading cause of death in the 20th century was “Democide”—or “murder by government,” which has claimed well over 260 million lives. All of the totalitarian murderous tyrannies the world over, despite their different political variations, maintained the same Darwinian evolutionary philosophy that humans are higher animals to be herded and culled in wars, death-camps, abortions, mass starvations, and outright slaughter. Does this issue matter? Well, it’s a matter of life and death. It needs to be refuted if it’s not true. We should evaluate the major evidences that exposes the 98% myth and supports the current conclusion that the actual similarity is 84.4%, or a difference of 15%, which translates to over 360 million base pairs’ difference. That is an enormous difference that produces an unbridgeable chasm between humans and chimpanzees. The chimp genome is much longer than the human genome. Humans have forty-six chromosomes, while chimps have forty-eight. According to the latest data, there are 3,096,649,726 base pairs in the human genome and 3,309,577,922 base pairs in the chimpanzee genome. This amounts to a 6.4% difference. The 98% similarity claim fails on this basis alone. If human and chimp DNA is nearly identical, why can’t humans interbreed with chimps? Furthermore, such an apparently minor difference in DNA (only 1%) does not account for the many obvious major differences between humans and chimps. If humans and chimps are so similar, then why can’t we interchange body parts with chimps? Over 30,000 organ transplants are made every year in the U.S. alone, and currently there are over 120,000 candidates on organ transplant lists—but zero of those transplants will be made using chimp organs. A Basic Overview The living populations of the chimp kind include four species that can interbreed. From the beginning, they were spirit-less animals created on Day 6 of creation. Later that Day, God made a single man in His own image, and He gave him an everlasting spirit or soul (Genesis 2:7). Then God commanded man to “rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the animals,” including chimps (Genesis 1:26). If the creation narrative from the Bible is true, we would expect exactly what we see in today’s ape-kinds. First, all varieties of chimps have no concept of eternity. For example, they do not bury their dead nor do they conduct funeral rituals. Secondly, apes use very limited verbal communication—they cannot write articles or even sentences. Thirdly, they do not display spiritual or religious practices as humans do. In other words, they show no capacity for knowing their creator through worship or prayer. This fits the Biblical creation account that God created humans as spiritual beings with an everlasting spirit or soul (Genesis 2:7). It stands to reason that God, in His desire to create diverse life forms on Earth, would begin with the same building materials, such as DNA, carbohydrates, fats, and protein, when making various animal kinds. Research has revealed that He used similar building blocks for all the various physical life forms that He created. Genetic information in all living creatures is encoded as a sequence of principally 4 nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, shown by the letters G, A, T, and C). We also see this principle in nature—such as many plants and animals sharing Fibonacci or similar spirals with clear algorithms and sequences as building patterns. Chimp and human DNA use the same chemicals and share many sequence similarities. However, these likenesses do not prove that those similarities came from shared ancestors, since similar design can also explain them. After all, design constraints require an engineer to use many of the same raw materials and building plans to produce different types of biological machines—especially if those machines need to interact with the same building blocks for growth and life. For example, an automotive engineer could make a Volkswagen bug and a Porsche Carrera framework out of steel, glass, and plastic but not oxygen, carbon dioxide, and sulfuric acid. When experts talk about DNA similarity, they refer to a variety of different features. Sometimes they talk about humans and chimpanzees having the same genes. At other times, they talk about certain DNA sequences being 98 to 99% similar. First, let’s consider why human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are actually closer to 84.4% than 98% similar. Then, describing the concepts of genes and gene similarity will reveal much insight into human and chimp DNA dissimilarity. Comparisons of Chimps and Humans Once you understand that the new DNA evidence debunks the alleged human evolution paradigm, you will appreciate that you are a unique creation whom the Creator made in His own image. You are special and unique compared to all of creation. A child that sees a chimpanzee can immediately tell that it is radically different from a human. Compared to chimps, humans are about 38% taller, are 80% heavier, live 50% longer, and have brains that are about 400% larger (1330 ccs compared to 330 ccs). Look at someone next to you and roll your eyes at them. Chimps can’t do that because their sclera, like most other animals, is hidden behind their eyelids. Now tap your fingertips with your thumb. Chimps can’t do that either—their fingers are curved, their thumbs are both tiny and set further back on their wrists than humans, and they are missing the flexor pollicis longus—the major muscle that controls thumb dexterity in humans. Additionally, their knees point out, whereas ours point forward. Humans can build space shuttles and write songs. Chimps don’t do anything close. Scientists now know that chimpanzees are radically different than humans in many different ways besides their outward appearance. Humans and chimpanzees have differences in bone structures, in brain types, and in other major parts of their physiology. Humans also have the ability to express their thoughts abstractly in speech, writing, and music, as well as develop other complicated systems of expression and communication. This is why humans stand above all other types of creatures. The claimed small genetic differences between human and chimp DNA (1 to 2%) must account for these and many other major differences! The difference between humans and chimpanzees is major and includes about 350 million different DNA bases. In fact, it is hard to compare the two genomes because of radical differences in arrangement. Telomeres in Chimps and other apes are about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) long. Humans stand out from primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long. The human Y chromosome almost completely misaligns with chimpanzees. Even if human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are as similar as some evolutionists claim, the DNA coding makes two entirely different creatures! The chromosome fusion theory claims that two smaller chimpanzee chromosomes fused to form human chromosome 2. Geneticists have refuted the claim. Sadly, this false claim has been used as proof of human evolution, even in textbooks. Research by Dr. David A. DeWitt has revealed new stunning insights regarding the major differences between human and chimp DNA: There exist 40–45 million bases [DNA “letters”] in humans missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are termed “insertions” and “deletions” because they are assumed to have been added or lost from the original common ancestor sequence. These differences alone put the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, about 40 million total separate mutation events would be required to separate the two species. To put this number into perspective, a typical 8½ x 11-inch page of text has about 4,000 letters and spaces. It would require 10,000 such pages of text equaling 40 million letters or 20 full-sized novels. The difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 45 million human base pairs that chimps don’t have and about 45 million base pairs in the chimp absent from the human. More research has left no doubt that a specific set of genetic programming exists for humans and another specific set exists for chimps. If chimps run on Microsoft, then humans run on Apple software. Both use binary code, and they have overlapping functions, but each has unique features. Biology textbooks typically explain that humans descended from some common ancestor related to the great apes. This animal group consists of orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Of these apes, evolutionists claim that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees based on comparisons of human DNA to chimp DNA. The real-world consequences of this ideology involve concluding that humans are not special creations, but that they are evolved animals. genesisapologetics.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 09:35 |
From genesisapologetics.com: Overview The idea that human and chimp DNA overlap by 98 to 99 percent has been widely used to promote the idea that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. But have you considered how they came up with this estimate? For starters, let’s look at the size of each genome. While estimates of the exact size of our genome has varied over the years, the last count has it at 3.097 billion base pairs. But the chimp genome is larger, at 3.231 billion. This means that chimps have at least 134 million more base pairs than we have. That makes their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible that our DNA is 98% similar to theirs, when the chimp genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Right out of the gate you can see there’s something wrong with the sweeping 98% estimate that’s frequently used. They came up with this figure by cherry picking only the sections of our DNA that overlapped with theirs. Let’s see how MinuteEarth, a secular training site that holds to an evolutionary perspective, describes it: When researchers sat down to compare the chimp and human genomes, those single-letter differences were easy to tally. But the big mismatched sections weren’t. For example, if a genetic paragraph—thousands of letters long—appears twice in a human scroll, but only once in its chimp counterpart, should the second copy count as thousands of changes, or just one? And what about identical paragraphs that appear in both genomes, but in different places, or in reverse order, or broken up into pieces? Rather than monkey around with these difficult questions, the researchers simply excluded all the large mismatched sections–a whopping 1.3 billion letters of DNA—and performed a letter-by-letter comparison on the remaining 2.4 billion, which turned out to be 98.77% identical. So, yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps—if we ignore 18 percent of their genome and 25 percent of ours. Wow—ignoring 18% of the chimp genome and 25% of the human genome—that’s a lot to ignore! In fact, this represents hundreds of millions of DNA letters in each side of the comparison! Could the sections they left out be responsible for coding most of the obvious differences we see between humans and chimps? They continue: And there’s another problem: just as a small tweak to a sentence can alter its meaning entirely or not at all, a few mutations in DNA sometimes produce big changes in a creature’s looks or behavior, whereas other times lots of mutations make very little difference. So just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are. It certainly makes sense that “just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are.” Indeed, human DNA and gene-level comparisons are frequently made to other mammals, such as mice, cows, and even dogs with high levels of overlap, and we are obviously quite different from these animals. The high degree of similarity is because the human body has many molecular similarities to other living things. After all, they all use the same basic molecules. They share the same water, oxygen, and food sources. Their metabolism and therefore their genetic makeup resemble one another to occupy the same world. However, these similarities do not mean they evolved from a common ancestor any more than all buildings constructed using brick, iron, cement, glass, etc. means that they share origins. DNA contains much of the information necessary for an organism to develop. If two organisms look similar, we would expect DNA similarity between them. The DNA of a cow and a whale should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. Likewise, humans and apes have many body similarities like bones, hair, and the ability to produce milk, so we would expect DNA sequences to match that. Of all known animals, the great apes are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. This is not always the case, though. Some comparisons between human genes and that of other animals in the literature are very interesting. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans, dogs 82%, cows 80%, chimpanzees 79%, rats 69%, and mice 67%. Other comparisons include both fruit fly (Drosophila) and chickens with about 60% of genes corresponding to a similar human gene. These estimates suffer from the same problems that human-chimp comparisons do, but they illustrate the patterns of similarity that one would expect from a single divine designer. Based on new data in 2018, researchers have now shown that the maximum human and chimp DNA similarity is actually only 84%, but this figure didn’t include the areas of human and chimp DNA that could not be matched up because they were so different, so the actual estimate is much lower. This brings us from 98% to 84% maximum similarity between the comparable regions. Using the corrected 84% figure, plus the fact that their genome is over 4% larger than ours, shows there are far too many genetic changes to go from chimp to human in the last six million years at the rate their theory proposes. This is really the crux of the matter. Let’s even assume for a minute that the DNA gap between chimps and humans is in fact only 1%. This would still represent over 30 million DNA letter differences between chimps and humans. Can random DNA mutations really produce 30 million meaningful changes to go from chimps to humans within the supposed 6 million-year timeframe? Secular scientists have closed the door on this possibility, even with conclusions drawn from evolution-based publications. For example, population geneticist, Michael Lynch stated in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution: “A central problem in the evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms by which adaptations requiring multiple mutations emerge in natural populations.” Lynch calculated that it would take over 200 million years for just two specific mutations to become established in a pre-human population. That’s over 33 times longer than the supposed 6 million years to develop just two mutations! So, under the evolutionary model, if it takes 200 million years to produce just two mutations, how long would it take to produce 30 million (based on the 1% difference)? Or how about 300 to 400 million (based on the 16% difference figure)? Do you see how absurd this is? Even though genetic researchers estimate there are about 100 new mutations per person, per generation most mutations have a near-neutral effect, and are furthermore slightly deleterious. Deleterious mutations randomly occur anywhere in the genome, so creating damage is easy. However, genetic changes that produce improvements are analogous to inserting just the right computer code into just the right place in a computer program for a specific benefit to emerge. It’s next to impossible. Not only does a specific letter need to mutate, it needs to fall into the genetic ladder at a specific location to actually result in some type of benefit. When it comes to how frequently these types of mutations occur compared to the evolutionary timescales, there’s just not enough time for it to happen. If it takes 200 million years for just two to emerge, and at least 300 to 400 million are needed to move from ape-like-creatures to human, one quickly understand that evolution from apes to humans is utterly impossible. Evolutionary geneticists from Cornell University have confirmed the scientific impossibility of this ape-to-human idea in a study published in the Annals of Applied Probability which revealed the average waiting time to form a slightly longer DNA sequence of only eight specific mutations is about 650 million years. This estimate gets 100 times longer after accounting for genetic drift, increasing the time to about 65 billion years, which is four times longer than the supposed 13.7 billion years ago that evolutionists believe the universe began. Now it’s impossible again. There is simply no way to go from ape-like-ancestors to humans. The fact is, the human and chimp genomes code for two completely different creatures. While both are mammals based on scientific criteria, God made man in His image and gave him a soul that is eternal. Human and chimp genomes code for two completely different things: Chimps, which are soul-less tree-dwelling animals; and humans, which are eternal souls wrapped in bodies that have vastly different capabilities than all animals because we were created in God’s image and charged to be caretakers over Creation—including chimps! Being made in the image of God and charged with taking care over God’s Creation would mean that humans would have several distinctions from chimps. Let’s take a look at just some of them. First, humans are the only living thing on the planet that has a conscience and a sense of morality. Our conscience lets us know when we’ve failed or when we might fail to abide by either governmental laws or God’s laws. Primates know nothing of laws. They live only by instincts and very limited group “norms.” Next, humans can speak. For example, the English language contains over 1 million words, and we can speak all of them, plus we can even learn or invent totally different languages. Apes cannot speak any of them. They do not even have a speech “program” installed in their brains. The parts of the human brain responsible for handling speech, called the Brodmann areas 44 and 45, are over six times larger in humans compared to chimps. Speaking of brains, ours are 400% larger than chimps. We’re also much smarter—having an average IQ of 100, when chimps can’t even take the test. Our brain cells’ DNA carries very unique methylation patterns that enable us to think the way we do. DNA methylation is a biochemical process that helps determine which genes will be more or less active. It occurs during development from an embryo through adulthood. As Institute for Creation Research Science Writer Brian Thomas points out, “If humans and chimps are close relatives, then they should have similar DNA methylation patterns in the areas of chromosomes that they have in common such as similar gene sequences. However, research teams have identified major differences.” The human neocortex is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the brain, with a 60-to-1 ratio of gray matter to the size of the medulla in our brainstems compared to just 30-to-1 in chimps. Overall, humans have almost twice as many spindle cells than chimps, enabling us to pull out memories from past experiences and use them to plot our next actions. These functions activate when moral dilemmas present decisions we need to make that will directly affect other lives. The insula part of our brains has 46 times the number of spindle cells compared to chimps—about 83 thousand for humans compared to only about 18 hundred for chimps. This makes sense because this part of our brains takes information from our skin, internal organs, and cardio system and converts it into subjective feelings such as empathy toward others who show signs of anguish or pain. We are expressive, sensitive, empathetic, and intuitive beings—but not animals. Our DNA differences direct the construction of uniquely human physical attributes. For example, humans have opposable thumbs that give our hands a nearly infinite variety of motions. We are typically 38% taller than chimps, 80% heavier, and live twice as long. Humans have white sclera that surrounds the colored iris of the eyes for rich and nuanced non-verbal communication, which the vast majority of apes do not have (some apes have a small amount, but none are equal to humans). We walk upright, while chimps—with their curved fingers, long arms, and unique locking wrist systems—are designed for living in trees and walking on all fours. Their knees also point outward for climbing in trees, whereas our knees point forward so we can walk or run all day if needed. Humans cannot interbreed with chimps. We can’t even swap any of our internal organs with chimps. Humans build space shuttles, write songs, worship, pray, and sing. Chimps don’t do any of these things. God specially designed us, formed the first of us from dust into the image of God, and gave each of us an everlasting soul. We were charged to be caretakers over the entire animal kingdom; that’s why we put chimps in the zoo, and not the other way around. Yes, we share vast DNA sequences with chimps, but we would expect this on the basis of Creation. We also share plenty of DNA with mammals other than chimps. After all, God made other mammals and man to metabolize the same food sources, grow the same basic materials like bones, teeth, muscles, skin and hair, and produce placentas and milk for the next generation. The fact that we have sections of DNA that are similar to these creatures’ only shows that our designer used similar DNA instructions for making similar features and functions. It does not mean that one creature led to the other, or that they are related by common ancestors. Who in their right mind would say that one software program, car, or airplane led to another all by itself? Bible-believing geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins said, “The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead, he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity.” We see the same pattern of both similarity and differences in organisms’ genomes. Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it is not due to evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s Creation? Consider a 3-D printer, capable of creating objects of any shape based on the programming code input by the designer. Making even minor changes to the code results in an object that looks very different. It’s the same with the DNA programming our creator used for building humans and chimps. Sections of our DNA building instructions are similar, but this is because the same designer used similar coding for building the physical bodies of humans and chimps that have many similarities, but also many distinctions. Clearly, overhyped stories of chimp-human similarities overlook some basic observations. They ignore huge sections of DNA. They exclude the possibility of intentional programming to explain similar DNA sequences, and they overlook unbridgeable physical, mental, and moral differences that all fit the Bible’s account of divine Creation. Confronting Human-Chimp Propaganda To close this section, let’s discuss a hypothetical exchange. How can you use the information in this section in conversation? First, the person makes the claim that “human and chimp DNA are genetically 98–99% identical or similar.” You can ask, “Do you know roughly how many bases are in the human and chimp genomes?” If they do, great. If not, then offer the fact that the human count is about 3.097 billion base pairs and the chimp count is 3.231 billion. This equates to about 134 million more base pairs than we have, making their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible to say their genome is 98–99% the same as ours, when their total genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Next, you might want to point out that they excluded 25% of the human genetic material and 18% of the chimps when they came up with the 98% similarity figure. If chimps and humans are significantly more than 1–2% different, as the data show they are, then there is not enough time in the supposed evolutionary timeline for that many changes to occur. It’s a gap evolution can’t bridge. genesisapologetics.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 11:55 |
The contortions some folks’ll go through to prove they don’t understand is pretty astounding> I agree - evolutionists do this all the time! Glad you’re finally noticing. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 15:49 |
I just flicked over to our beloved Coram's personal club site. He has a thread entitled 'Science in the Holy Bible'. I read a few of his posts there. I was struck at how effectively they turned the reader's mind away from what the Bible was actually teaching, and instead made up some total distraction in its place. Why would any Atheist want to 'disprove' the Bible, if 'believers' like Coram can turn it into a misleading nonsense instead? So I'm pondering starting up a thread along the lines of 'Fundamentalist Fallacies'. The rules for posting in this thread would be simple:- 1. You need a quote from some self-proclaimed 'Christian' source, asserting a 'scientific truth' in a passage from Bible. 2. You them post against it a proper, scholarly analysis of how the writer and/or the original readers would have understood that same passage. As an example, I paste below a post I recently made along these lines, in response to Coram's insistence that Genesis 1 should be understood as a narrative describing the actual process of Creation.... <Genesis ch. 1 breaks naturally into two parts. Phase 1 Day 1 God creates light and separates Light from Darkness Day 2 God separates the waters above from the waters below Day 3 God separates the dry land from the oceans below Remember that in Hebrew, ‘to separate’ also means ‘to dedicate’. Thus in Numbers 8:14, “You shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine.” Phase 2 Day 4 God creates the Sun, Moon and stars to populate the Light and the Darkness. Day 5 God creates birds and fish to populate the sky and the seas Day 6 God creates animals and humans to populate the dry land. So the first three days are all about ‘separating’ or ‘dedicating’ the different parts of Creation, like ceremonially purifying different parts of a Temple. The second set of three days is about filling these dedicated parts with creatures. Like putting the worshippers in the body of the building, the choir to either side and the priests around the altar. Everything has been made holy, prepared for the Seventh Day, for the Great Act of Worship which will include all Creation and all creatures in it! This pattern is emphasised by the repeated phrases “And God said…” “and it was good.” This corresponds to the pattern of worship in which a priest makes an announcement, declares a blessing or offers a prayer, and the worshipers answer with a set response. This refers back to the Dedication of the People in Deuteronomy 27:14 - 26 (And the Levites shall declare to all the men of Israel with a loud voice: “‘Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who dishonors his father or his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who removes his neighbor’s landmark.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who misleads a blind man on the road.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered her who is his father’s.’[b] And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who lies with any kind of beast.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who lies with his mother-in-law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who slays his neighbor in secret.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ “‘Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’) But you will notice one huge difference; In Deuteronomy the words are a list of curses by the People; here in Genesis it is a chain of benedictions by God. Thus the Creation Account tells the reader that the purpose of all of Creation is a preparation for an act of WORSHIP.> Any thoughts about such a thread?>> Hey Bob, Glad to see you visited my site. Did you catch these questions I asked of you a couple of days ago? • Do you think the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ was symbolic and He really wasn’t born of a virgin? • Do you think the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was symbolic and He really wasn’t Resurrected in bodily form? • Do you think the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit is symbolic and that God’s Holy Spirit really doesn’t live within believers? • Do you think the miracles Jesus Christ performed during His earthly ministry (i.e. raising three people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, numerous healings, multiplying loaves and fishes, etc.) were symbolic or do you think they actually happened as presented in the Gospels? Since you have such a wild imagination when it comes to interpreting the creation account in Genesis - an interpretation which is not shared by any Biblical scholar I’ve read on this subject - I’m honestly wondering if you apply that same wild imagination to other major parts of the Holy Bible. I think you oughta be upfront and honest about what you believe and let people know so they can determine for themselves whether you know whereof you speak. “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:20-21) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 16:35 |
And, in your answer, you also say human beings were made in the image of God - yet you’re an evolutionist. That sounds kind of contradictory too. Anyway, here’s the exchange… BC: Another question But this one you don't have to answer if you don't want too. If it were asked of me I don't think I could answer it, not yet anyway... The problem is 'words'. None really explain ones inner feelings or answer any questions.. Words like 'Universe or God, or Heaven and Hell. Or Love. So my Question is 'Who or what is your God' ?. Or more precisely, down deep, what is it that you believe or hope for?. Such things may not always be explained by Science nor Religion. Walking a path between Hope and perceived Reality is no easy task. One could fall into despair one moment, and then collapse into complete delusion the next. As an Astronomer i do know one thing. The Cosmos is vast beyond comprehension. So therefor the Possibilities are also. Simple Math. You: That's not far short of the Ultimate Question. I'll answer by P.M. If anyone else wants to see the answer, I'll copy it to him/her on request. <<I love how you try to answer in secret.>> Stal: I think it would be of great interest for all Club Members to familiarise themselves with your answer to that important question. Please, do post it here. <<And of course you comply because you take your orders from atheists.>> You: You asked for it, Stal! Just imagine how our mutual friend Coram will react! It's not what he was taught at Sunday School... <<And of course the gratuitous swipe at me. What a nasty guy you can be, Bob.>> Hi Athena, You asked “So my question is ‘Who or what is your God?’ Or more precisely ‘What is it deep down that you believe or hope for?’” The short answer is ‘I don’t know.’ Or more precisely, ‘I’m still finding out.’ Everything I can conceive of is an infant’s stick-figure sketch of the Truth. All my theology is just a first approximation. All my dreams, hopes and yearnings are a feeble grope into Immensity. By-the-way, I’ll use the masculine pronoun, not because God is male but because this pronoun when properly used is not exclusively male but includes the feminine and indeterminate. It is the default pronoun for anyone of unknown gender, such as ‘let him who is without sin…’ or ‘every man for himself’. But reporting on my current position…. God is transcendent. He is not only infinitely above us, He is infinitely above anything we conceive. Anselm tried to prove the existence of God with his ‘ontological argument’, but his argument falls laughably short. God is beyond even ontology. God is immanent. He is not only in all space and all time, but is everywhere and everywhen in a simultaneous instant. God is sovereign. That means that God’s hand cannot be forced, he is under no obligation to anyone except himself. One famous dictum is ‘anyone who would make a contract with God will find his own signature on both sides of the page.’ His purposes are his own, and nothing can thwart them. When someone asks ‘why is there evil in the world’, there is an implicit assumption that God is under some sort of duty to reduce or eliminate evil. But he is not. The Creation is not about the Creation itself, but about the Creator. We need to remember our place! The question would be more fruitful if it were ‘What purpose does this evil serve?’ So far, so very-stern-Calvinist! But that is not all. God is Love. A love so vast it becomes incomprehensible. Not a syrupy, emotional love, but one that does the hard yards for the benefit of someone else. A love that allows it to be flogged to exhaustion and then forced to drag a cross-beam up a hill for the final torture and humiliation. Crucifixion wasn’t just about pain. It was mostly about humiliation. Here is someone, naked to the world (forget the little loincloth shown on crucifixes today), who knows he will die but still finds himself struggling for one… more… breath. He is forced by his own body to make the disgrace last even longer! He can’t even die by his own choice! And as the exhaustion sets in, the uncontrolled urination and defecation… In my book, Pope Barnabas has a vision in which God says, “Peter, you know I love you.” “Yes, I know that.” “Then know that My love is a ruthless love. It has done whatever it had to, to fashion you for your mission. Already I have struck you down, time and again. You have felt my Hammer, and you know it. Now I ask that you kiss it.” “Father, I know Your love! And I kiss Your hammer! But please, if this must be done, then show me Your mercy in the doing! At least, walk beside me as I go!” “I have already made you a man after My own heart, Peter, but I must complete the work. I must now make you a man in My own image. I gave no comfort on Calvary and I will give no comfort today. A little while and you will see Me no more. But even though you will not see Me, I have promised I will never leave you. Will you trust Me, even as you search for Me but can’t find Me?” “Whom have I in heaven but You? And on Earth I desire nothing beside You,” Barnabas quoted the psalm as his answer. We were made to be in the Image of God. That means, to show the characteristics of God, even if scaled down a bit. As God is in control over Creation, so we are called to ‘be in control’. That is why slavery is so evil; it denies the slave his/her control over his/her own body. It is also why altruism is admired. Every human knows, deep down, that such behaviour is how humans should relate to each other. It is in the image of God. Well, that’s God dealt with, in just over a page. Now, “What do I hope for?” I hope that one day I will know what I hope for. I know it won’t be drifting around on a cloud, playing a harp. That’s just not ME! I know nothing about music! Nor will it be in some fresh-air village tilling the soil, with God peeking over the mountains at me. That might be shown on Jehovah’s Witness literature, but it is so kitsch! Everything I could imagine is just a child’s imagination. But at present my best guess is formed by St. Paul’s ‘Christ Mysticism’ and Karl Barth’s Christology. If you care to, read the first 14 verses of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Notice the number of times he says ‘IN Christ’ rather that ‘with’ or ‘through’ or ‘by’. Then 1 Corinthians 12:12 – 27 for his extended ‘body’ metaphor. To Paul, John’s metaphor of Christ being the vine and we the branches is not just a metaphor; it is a hidden reality. It is almost as though (to use a modern parallel) we are all self-conscious cells in a greater body. Then we have Barth, a ‘traditional’ Protestant with a radically new view. In contrast with Calvin, who asserted God’s ‘eternal decree’ that some would be saved and others wouldn’t, Barth asserted that ONLY CHRIST is saved. And that Christ is the locus of all humanity. In Christ, all humanity is ‘God’s elect’. Barth was rather coy when asked if this meant ‘every individual’. He implied that concepts such as ‘individual’ as we speak today would not be a meaningful, but he denied ‘universalism’ as it was currently conceived. There is also a practical question. If this little Bobby is saved, WHICH Bobby is saved? The smart-arse teenager who knew all the answers? The guy in his twenties, married and making a career? The guy in his thirties, with two kids and trying to start up his own business, up to his neck in politics and absolutely frazzled from the overload? Perhaps in his forties, with his business expanding, but needing to plough all profits back into more equipment and staff? Or the guy in his sixties, his business having imploded during a recession, now bankrupt, clinically depressed and marginally suicidal? Or Bobby now, with a stuffed heart muscle and still emotionally fragile despite no longer being classified as ‘depressed’. My answer is ALL of those Bobbys are included in salvation, which is another word for becoming a fully-integrated person over a lifetime experienced sequentially; as well as being part of a Humanity in Christ that is now integrated after being initially experienced individually. Perhaps that last paragraph might give some context for my position on sexism and racism. But I’m still working. No-where near finished yet! <<So it’s really not clear what you believe. And if you don’t believe God revealed Himself in and through Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and was crucified and Resurrected to atone for the sins of mankind, I’d suggest you’re not a Christian. And I’m not saying that in an accusatory way; just a definitional way. I think God revealed Himself - His character and what He values - first through the Law and then through Jesus Christ. So I think it’s possible to know God because of that. And I think it’s possible to have a relationship with God and to walk with God because I and millions of other Christians have it and do it. God is accessible, Bob. He’s accessible through His Word and through prayer. Be blessed! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 26-Oct-21, 16:48 |
Stal: I understand what you are saying. You: That's comforting, because I don't. I only have hints, whispers, flashes, and I know I'll still be puzzling over it when I die. I think I have barely enough to guess which direction to take. m.gameknot.com <<I’m not knocking you for not knowing what you believe, Bob. A lot of people don’t know what they believe and are still finding out. But why present yourself on here as a “rusted-on Christian” who nevertheless has a “mature faith” and as an authority on the Holy Bible when you don’t know what you believe? And your interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is so “out there” not a single Bible commentator (that I’m aware of) shares your interpretation. And yet you implied to someone at FIAT LUX III that your interpretation was “mainstream.” Not even close.>> |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 03:27 |
So you have no thoughts about the articles I posted that dispute your false assertion that the “basic biochemistry and biophysics of humans and apes” are “basically exactly the same?” This is the little trick you so often perform when a discussion isn’t going your way. Rather than admit your position is deficient or mistaken - or do the hard work of disputing a claim - you pretend to be offended by something and say further discussion is pointless. In the past, you’d punctuate your manufactured drama by storming out of a club (only to rejoin the club when the debate you were losing/had lost was long over.) The reason discussions don’t go anywhere with you is you refuse to acknowledge you could be mistaken or do the hard work of refuting a claim. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 03:53 |
So I skimmed your most recent posts in the Evolution theory thread and it seems your symbolically wild interpretation of Genesis 1 was lifted from some bloke who wrote a book on Amazon. Yet you still haven’t reconciled his interpretation, which you initially failed to credit him for, with Genesis 2:7. Because the creation account doesn’t end in chapter 1. Seems like the rest of your posts are just more of your cheap insults. You can insult and mock me all you want, Bob, but I’m not pretending to be someone I’m not on here. By your own admission, you don’t know who or what God is or what you believe. You said that - not me. And yet you try to present yourself on here as a “rusted-on Christian” (who nevertheless has a “mature faith”) and as an authority on the Holy Bible. Bob, God reveals Himself throughout the Bible - first by giving the Law to the Jews and then in and through Jesus Christ. How could you be a “rusted-on Christian” and not know who or what God is and what you believe? As I respectfully suggested, if you think the Resurrection of Jesus Christ never happened (was only symbolic,) you’re not a Christian because Christianity is based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’ve only ever said on here that I’m a Christian who loves (make that LOVES) the Holy Bible. And you feel that’s worthy of continual insults and harassment. Ok, not exactly evidence of your “mature faith” and the fruit of the Spirit, but I suspect you’re just taking orders from the atheists. But why don’t you be who you are on here, Bob? I give you credit for telling members of FIAT LUX III you don’t know what you believe. Be that honest all the time! If you don’t know what you believe, why do you say you’re a “rusted-on Christian” with a mature faith? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 07:07 |
But that’s what happens when atheists who are sleepwalking through life believing Darwin’s Big Lie have their beliefs challenged. They react with great hostility and nastiness. It’s really very sad. I can think of so many verses from God’s Word when I see this kind of toxic hate coming from atheists. Here are a few: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18) “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:20-23, 25) One day they may see the light ✝️ 🙏 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 07:16 |
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) And atheists would do well to meditate on this verse: “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13) Here is a good explanation of Hebrews 4:13. From bibleref.com: What does Hebrews 4:13 mean? The Bible often points out the futility of hiding from God. Adam and Eve attempted to hide from God after they sinned in Eden (Genesis 3:8¬–10). Cain tried to hide his murder of Abel from God (Genesis 4:9). Jonah hid on a boat (Jonah 1:1–4). Everything we think is hidden is crystal clear to God, including our own thoughts and motivations. We may fool other people (1 Samuel 16:7), and we may even fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9), but we cannot fool God (Psalm 44:21). Chapter 4 encouraged Christians to seek God's will through obedience. The most powerful tool we have in this task is the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). Like a razor-sharp blade that can even separate the joints and ligaments of an animal, the Bible distinguishes between even the most closely-related thoughts of our hearts. This, then, is how we are meant to know the difference between truly godly actions and selfish piety (Matthew 7:21–23). God's judgment will make it clear what is worthy and what is not (1 Corinthians 3:11–15; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The Bible is an important tool to use. According to this verse, nobody is beyond God's knowledge. We must come to God, through Christ, in faith for salvation (Hebrews 2:9–10). We must be diligent in studying our faith in order to avoid catastrophe (Hebrews 2:1–4). We must be obedient to God in order to fulfill our "rest" and find our spiritual inheritance (Hebrews 3:12–14). And ultimately, we are accountable to God and God alone. This makes the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) our most important tool as we strive to "hold fast" to our faith (Hebrews 3:6). At the same time, and critically important to the Christian faith, God sympathizes with our struggles. We can seek mercy and forgiveness, with confidence, specifically because we know Christ has endured the same temptations we have. This is the message of the final three verses of chapter 4. Context Summary Hebrews 4:1–13 reassures Christians that they have not missed their opportunity to enjoy the ''rest'' promised by God. Chapter 3 warned about the dangers of losing faith and disobeying God. In this passage, the writer points out that psalmists like David, who came long after Moses, encouraged Israel to obtain God's rest ''today.'' Since God's rest on the seventh day of creation came only after His work was done, and Israel only suffered loss when they failed to complete their assigned work, Christians should strive to complete the work given them by God, in order to obtain the greater heavenly rewards. The most potent tool we have in this effort is the razor-sharp Word of God. www.bibleref.com |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 08:09 |
We have a moderator at FIAT LUX III who’s said he’s going to ignore me at least four or five times, but he goes back to posting about me within 24 hours. He just can’t quit me! But it is interesting that the atheists’ sudden decision to ignore me comes right after I posted an article that refutes FIAT LUX III’s dear leader’s false claim that the “basic biochemistry and biophysics of humans and apes” are “basically exactly the same” and exposes the lie that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans are 98% the same. Of course, that 98% claim is hogwash arrived at by “scientists” manipulating data in service of Darwin’s Big Lie. But the atheists embrace that hogwash like a security blanket, and the idea it might be taken from them causes them to lash out in hate-filled rants. Here’s the article again: From genesisapologetics.com: Overview The idea that human and chimp DNA overlap by 98 to 99 percent has been widely used to promote the idea that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. But have you considered how they came up with this estimate? For starters, let’s look at the size of each genome. While estimates of the exact size of our genome has varied over the years, the last count has it at 3.097 billion base pairs. But the chimp genome is larger, at 3.231 billion. This means that chimps have at least 134 million more base pairs than we have. That makes their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible that our DNA is 98% similar to theirs, when the chimp genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Right out of the gate you can see there’s something wrong with the sweeping 98% estimate that’s frequently used. They came up with this figure by cherry picking only the sections of our DNA that overlapped with theirs. Let’s see how MinuteEarth, a secular training site that holds to an evolutionary perspective, describes it: When researchers sat down to compare the chimp and human genomes, those single-letter differences were easy to tally. But the big mismatched sections weren’t. For example, if a genetic paragraph—thousands of letters long—appears twice in a human scroll, but only once in its chimp counterpart, should the second copy count as thousands of changes, or just one? And what about identical paragraphs that appear in both genomes, but in different places, or in reverse order, or broken up into pieces? Rather than monkey around with these difficult questions, the researchers simply excluded all the large mismatched sections–a whopping 1.3 billion letters of DNA—and performed a letter-by-letter comparison on the remaining 2.4 billion, which turned out to be 98.77% identical. So, yes, we share 99% of our DNA with chimps—if we ignore 18 percent of their genome and 25 percent of ours. Wow—ignoring 18% of the chimp genome and 25% of the human genome—that’s a lot to ignore! In fact, this represents hundreds of millions of DNA letters in each side of the comparison! Could the sections they left out be responsible for coding most of the obvious differences we see between humans and chimps? They continue: And there’s another problem: just as a small tweak to a sentence can alter its meaning entirely or not at all, a few mutations in DNA sometimes produce big changes in a creature’s looks or behavior, whereas other times lots of mutations make very little difference. So just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are. It certainly makes sense that “just counting up the number of genetic changes doesn’t really tell us that much about how similar or different two creatures are.” Indeed, human DNA and gene-level comparisons are frequently made to other mammals, such as mice, cows, and even dogs with high levels of overlap, and we are obviously quite different from these animals. The high degree of similarity is because the human body has many molecular similarities to other living things. After all, they all use the same basic molecules. They share the same water, oxygen, and food sources. Their metabolism and therefore their genetic makeup resemble one another to occupy the same world. However, these similarities do not mean they evolved from a common ancestor any more than all buildings constructed using brick, iron, cement, glass, etc. means that they share origins. DNA contains much of the information necessary for an organism to develop. If two organisms look similar, we would expect DNA similarity between them. The DNA of a cow and a whale should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. Likewise, humans and apes have many body similarities like bones, hair, and the ability to produce milk, so we would expect DNA sequences to match that. Of all known animals, the great apes are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. This is not always the case, though. Some comparisons between human genes and that of other animals in the literature are very interesting. Cats have 90% homologous genes with humans, dogs 82%, cows 80%, chimpanzees 79%, rats 69%, and mice 67%. Other comparisons include both fruit fly (Drosophila) and chickens with about 60% of genes corresponding to a similar human gene. These estimates suffer from the same problems that human-chimp comparisons do, but they illustrate the patterns of similarity that one would expect from a single divine designer. Based on new data in 2018, researchers have now shown that the maximum human and chimp DNA similarity is actually only 84%, but this figure didn’t include the areas of human and chimp DNA that could not be matched up because they were so different, so the actual estimate is much lower. This brings us from 98% to 84% maximum similarity between the comparable regions. Using the corrected 84% figure, plus the fact that their genome is over 4% larger than ours, shows there are far too many genetic changes to go from chimp to human in the last six million years at the rate their theory proposes. This is really the crux of the matter. Let’s even assume for a minute that the DNA gap between chimps and humans is in fact only 1%. This would still represent over 30 million DNA letter differences between chimps and humans. Can random DNA mutations really produce 30 million meaningful changes to go from chimps to humans within the supposed 6 million-year timeframe? Secular scientists have closed the door on this possibility, even with conclusions drawn from evolution-based publications. For example, population geneticist, Michael Lynch stated in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution: “A central problem in the evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms by which adaptations requiring multiple mutations emerge in natural populations.” Lynch calculated that it would take over 200 million years for just two specific mutations to become established in a pre-human population. That’s over 33 times longer than the supposed 6 million years to develop just two mutations! So, under the evolutionary model, if it takes 200 million years to produce just two mutations, how long would it take to produce 30 million (based on the 1% difference)? Or how about 300 to 400 million (based on the 16% difference figure)? Do you see how absurd this is? Even though genetic researchers estimate there are about 100 new mutations per person, per generation most mutations have a near-neutral effect, and are furthermore slightly deleterious. Deleterious mutations randomly occur anywhere in the genome, so creating damage is easy. However, genetic changes that produce improvements are analogous to inserting just the right computer code into just the right place in a computer program for a specific benefit to emerge. It’s next to impossible. Not only does a specific letter need to mutate, it needs to fall into the genetic ladder at a specific location to actually result in some type of benefit. When it comes to how frequently these types of mutations occur compared to the evolutionary timescales, there’s just not enough time for it to happen. If it takes 200 million years for just two to emerge, and at least 300 to 400 million are needed to move from ape-like-creatures to human, one quickly understand that evolution from apes to humans is utterly impossible. Evolutionary geneticists from Cornell University have confirmed the scientific impossibility of this ape-to-human idea in a study published in the Annals of Applied Probability which revealed the average waiting time to form a slightly longer DNA sequence of only eight specific mutations is about 650 million years. This estimate gets 100 times longer after accounting for genetic drift, increasing the time to about 65 billion years, which is four times longer than the supposed 13.7 billion years ago that evolutionists believe the universe began. Now it’s impossible again. There is simply no way to go from ape-like-ancestors to humans. The fact is, the human and chimp genomes code for two completely different creatures. While both are mammals based on scientific criteria, God made man in His image and gave him a soul that is eternal. Human and chimp genomes code for two completely different things: Chimps, which are soul-less tree-dwelling animals; and humans, which are eternal souls wrapped in bodies that have vastly different capabilities than all animals because we were created in God’s image and charged to be caretakers over Creation—including chimps! Being made in the image of God and charged with taking care over God’s Creation would mean that humans would have several distinctions from chimps. Let’s take a look at just some of them. First, humans are the only living thing on the planet that has a conscience and a sense of morality. Our conscience lets us know when we’ve failed or when we might fail to abide by either governmental laws or God’s laws. Primates know nothing of laws. They live only by instincts and very limited group “norms.” Next, humans can speak. For example, the English language contains over 1 million words, and we can speak all of them, plus we can even learn or invent totally different languages. Apes cannot speak any of them. They do not even have a speech “program” installed in their brains. The parts of the human brain responsible for handling speech, called the Brodmann areas 44 and 45, are over six times larger in humans compared to chimps. Speaking of brains, ours are 400% larger than chimps. We’re also much smarter—having an average IQ of 100, when chimps can’t even take the test. Our brain cells’ DNA carries very unique methylation patterns that enable us to think the way we do. DNA methylation is a biochemical process that helps determine which genes will be more or less active. It occurs during development from an embryo through adulthood. As Institute for Creation Research Science Writer Brian Thomas points out, “If humans and chimps are close relatives, then they should have similar DNA methylation patterns in the areas of chromosomes that they have in common such as similar gene sequences. However, research teams have identified major differences.” The human neocortex is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the brain, with a 60-to-1 ratio of gray matter to the size of the medulla in our brainstems compared to just 30-to-1 in chimps. Overall, humans have almost twice as many spindle cells than chimps, enabling us to pull out memories from past experiences and use them to plot our next actions. These functions activate when moral dilemmas present decisions we need to make that will directly affect other lives. The insula part of our brains has 46 times the number of spindle cells compared to chimps—about 83 thousand for humans compared to only about 18 hundred for chimps. This makes sense because this part of our brains takes information from our skin, internal organs, and cardio system and converts it into subjective feelings such as empathy toward others who show signs of anguish or pain. We are expressive, sensitive, empathetic, and intuitive beings—but not animals. Our DNA differences direct the construction of uniquely human physical attributes. For example, humans have opposable thumbs that give our hands a nearly infinite variety of motions. We are typically 38% taller than chimps, 80% heavier, and live twice as long. Humans have white sclera that surrounds the colored iris of the eyes for rich and nuanced non-verbal communication, which the vast majority of apes do not have (some apes have a small amount, but none are equal to humans). We walk upright, while chimps—with their curved fingers, long arms, and unique locking wrist systems—are designed for living in trees and walking on all fours. Their knees also point outward for climbing in trees, whereas our knees point forward so we can walk or run all day if needed. Humans cannot interbreed with chimps. We can’t even swap any of our internal organs with chimps. Humans build space shuttles, write songs, worship, pray, and sing. Chimps don’t do any of these things. God specially designed us, formed the first of us from dust into the image of God, and gave each of us an everlasting soul. We were charged to be caretakers over the entire animal kingdom; that’s why we put chimps in the zoo, and not the other way around. Yes, we share vast DNA sequences with chimps, but we would expect this on the basis of Creation. We also share plenty of DNA with mammals other than chimps. After all, God made other mammals and man to metabolize the same food sources, grow the same basic materials like bones, teeth, muscles, skin and hair, and produce placentas and milk for the next generation. The fact that we have sections of DNA that are similar to these creatures’ only shows that our designer used similar DNA instructions for making similar features and functions. It does not mean that one creature led to the other, or that they are related by common ancestors. Who in their right mind would say that one software program, car, or airplane led to another all by itself? Bible-believing geneticist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins said, “The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead, he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity.” We see the same pattern of both similarity and differences in organisms’ genomes. Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it is not due to evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s Creation? Consider a 3-D printer, capable of creating objects of any shape based on the programming code input by the designer. Making even minor changes to the code results in an object that looks very different. It’s the same with the DNA programming our creator used for building humans and chimps. Sections of our DNA building instructions are similar, but this is because the same designer used similar coding for building the physical bodies of humans and chimps that have many similarities, but also many distinctions. Clearly, overhyped stories of chimp-human similarities overlook some basic observations. They ignore huge sections of DNA. They exclude the possibility of intentional programming to explain similar DNA sequences, and they overlook unbridgeable physical, mental, and moral differences that all fit the Bible’s account of divine Creation. Confronting Human-Chimp Propaganda To close this section, let’s discuss a hypothetical exchange. How can you use the information in this section in conversation? First, the person makes the claim that “human and chimp DNA are genetically 98–99% identical or similar.” You can ask, “Do you know roughly how many bases are in the human and chimp genomes?” If they do, great. If not, then offer the fact that the human count is about 3.097 billion base pairs and the chimp count is 3.231 billion. This equates to about 134 million more base pairs than we have, making their genome at least 4.3% larger than ours. So how is it possible to say their genome is 98–99% the same as ours, when their total genome is actually 4.3% larger than ours? Next, you might want to point out that they excluded 25% of the human genetic material and 18% of the chimps when they came up with the 98% similarity figure. If chimps and humans are significantly more than 1–2% different, as the data show they are, then there is not enough time in the supposed evolutionary timeline for that many changes to occur. It’s a gap evolution can’t bridge. <<The link to this article is a few posts up, along with an excerpt from a separate longer article that basically covers the same ground but in much more detail. Isn’t it amazing how “scientists” will manipulate data, and, in some cases, outright fabricate it in service of their atheism and Darwin’s Big Lie?>> |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 04:11 |
I really wish they would since they post so many misrepresentations and falsehoods about what I have said and believe, and it’s tedious to constantly be correcting them. But let’s have another go! <<The Club is grateful to you for that.>> stalhandske, Bob has stated he doesn’t know who or what God is and doesn’t know what he believes. His wildly symbolic interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is way outside the mainstream of Christian thought. He is an evolutionist who said humans were made in the image of God. How is it possible to be an evolutionist and believe that? I would check with another source before accepting anything Bob has to say about the Holy Bible or Christianity. Obviously, you’d prefer not to check with me, but there are plenty of other mainstream Christians online. That’s the wonder of the Interwebs! <<This is not a club for atheists, it is a chess club for Members who also want to exchange opinions and thoughts about other things, including matters of society, politics, religion, science, etc.>> I don’t disagree and never said otherwise. But your most frequent posters are atheists. <<Many of our Members are religious Christians, for whom the Christian faith is fundamentally important.>> Ok. How often do they post? And how often do they post compared to atheists in your club? <<I'll be the first to honour that.>> As long as they believe the theory of evolution, you’ll honour that. <<So, the constant accusation of this club being atheist is yeat another lie.>> Your most frequent posters are atheists. Bob may not be an atheist, but he has said he doesn’t know who or what God is or what he believes and that he’s still finding out so maybe he’s an agnostic. <<But, as I hope has become evident from the exchanges on evolution theory, I cannot stand lies and false information, such as denying the sheer facts that the biochemistry and biophysics of humans is virtually the same as that of the apes.>> This has been disputed scientifically and in great detail with very clear reasons given - some of the reasons were cited by a secular website! Yesterday, I posted an article in full that challenged this belief and an excerpt from a very long article that challenged this belief. I asked what you made of those articles and you declined to answer. <<Or that there is an extremely high chromosomal sequence correspondence between humans and chimpanzees. This is an area of science that I happen to actually know pretty well after a lifelong career in the area.>> I asked your opinion on the two articles I posted yesterday on this subject and you refused to give it. <<What I know very little about in comparison is the Bible. Yet, I was brought up in a Christian home, baptised and confirmed, and left the Church only at the age of 25. Therefore, I am indebted to Bob, who has taken the task of correcting the also to me very strange views of the Bible by coram.>> What is strange about my view of the Bible? Are we getting back to the theory of evolution again? If so, why are you guys so hung up on that? Most Bible commentators I’ve seen believe Genesis should be taken literally. The idea Genesis should be taken literally is not outside mainstream Christian thought. It’s outside the thought of evolutionists and atheists, but I’m neither. <<To me, they are strange already when realising that they are not shared by the major Christian churches, who see no reason for conflict between evolution theory and Christian faith.>> I knew you were talking about evolution lol. You guys are so hung up on that. I’ve said before that the Catholic Church has many beliefs and practices that contradict the Bible. I posted them at least once and will be happy to do so again. I haven’t taken or seen a survey, but I think the majority of Christians, at least in the country where I live, do not think the Bible and theory of evolution are compatible. I cited verses in Genesis (I believe, from memory, they were Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7) that I believed could not be reconciled with the theory of evolution no matter how much symbolism was read into them. I never received a response that demonstrated they could. <<With this I will abstain from commenting coram any further,>> Can I hold you to this? I sincerely doubt you will abstain if I post anything that contradicts the theory of evolution. <<however much he may again make fun of this.>> I don’t make fun of people and I don’t attack people. Look at the first two dozen posts in this thread to see where that comes from. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 04:47 |
Good background. I believe you said in a prior post (weeks ago) that you asked God to do something and He didn’t do it so you concluded God didn’t exist. I think you had the roles of God and man reversed. <<I do, however, fiercely dispute the interpretations which coram brings to the table.>> Such as? Let me guess - I don’t believe the theory of evolution and so I’m a wacko. Is that it? Please let it be something else lol. <<I know that what he says is nonsense, and that your explanations are more reasonable,>> What are you referring to? <<commonly accepted widely by all communities involved in these kind of discussions,>> You think popularity is the gauge of truth? But I’d suggest many more Christians than you realize reject the theory of evolution (as do not a few scientists) and believe Genesis should be interpreted literally. <<and I accept all of what your argued in this thread.>> Evolution, right? You guys really are wedded to that theory. <<I dispute the claims by coram that you are lying,>> Bob lies about what I have said and believe constantly. Why don’t you guys just say what you believe instead of constantly trying to say what I believe since you rarely get it right. <<saying that he is a liar, that you are not a true Christian, and all of that which we have seen these last months.>> Bob said he doesn’t know who or what God is or what he believes. He said that. Not me. If he doesn’t believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, he’s not a Christian because the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is what the Christian faith was founded on. <<I question the Bible specifically in another context altogether, which is not applicable to this discussion. I have made mention of my queries before, I believe in other threads. In this thread, I agree with your views.>> So an evolutionist believes the creation account in Genesis should not be taken literally. That’s hardly surprising. <<And I disagree with most of that which coram alleges!>> Such as? You speak a great deal in generalities. Why don’t you get specific? <<As do we all- atheists, Christians, Catholics and all other contributors here seem to do unanimously.>> Huh? What I believe is mainstream Christianity. But your accusations have no substance or supporting evidence. Why is that? <<I have spent a little more time reading some of what coram said recently. I note that he mixes in just enough of the truth to make his arguments seem valid to the mind which does not inquire into the validity of his statements.>> Any specifics? Any examples? Or is this yet another accusation based on zero substance and zero evidence? <<To the critical, open mind, it is easy to tear apart the fallacies and fables he weaves, seemingly so effortlessly.>> Examples? Specifics? You typed a lot of words and made quite a few accusations, but with zero substance and zero evidence. <<@stalhandske, you don't need to abstain from the dialogue with coram; I still find nuggets of knowledge there which I appreciate a lot. But I must say this, unless it is pertinent to understand his latest ravings>> Ravings? I post Bible passages, verses, Devotionals and commentaries. Occasionally, I’ll post my views in my own words, but mostly I post commentaries I agree with. How is that “raving?” <<I am not going to waste my time reading his crap.>> Can I hold you to that? <<I'll rely on the excerpts you copy from his 'club' as the truth and read from there.>> So excerpts from my club are both the truth and crap? Huh? <<BTW- a club: according to my dictionary (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language, International Edition, 1964 [Library of Congress Card Number 58-11577]) is explained as follows: CLUB (klub) n 1 An organization of persons for social intercourse or other common object; 2 A house or room reserved for the meetings of such an organization. - v. clubbed, clubbing v.t. To contribute for a common purpose; make common stock of: to club resources. -v.i. To combine with a common object; form a club: often with together. - adj. Of, pertaining to, or belonging to a club. (Sorry, I can't type in Italics or bold font here- please forgive that.) I am not sure that the solo effort should or could be called a club. It could be called many other things: a diatribe, a monologue, a soliloquies...... not a club. As seen above, a club means the involvement of more than one party or entity, and consistently throughout the explanation such a club must have common goals. That thing has none of these characteristics.>> stalhandske raised this point earlier and it’s clear you guys are trying to get this club shut down on the pretext I’m the only member (but it’s obvious my opposition to the theory of evolution is the real reason you and other atheists are trying to get this club shut down.) And since you apparently can’t find violations of GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct (although you guys violate the Rules of Conduct repeatedly and with impunity,) you’re trying to get this club shut down based on me being the only member. I don’t think GameKnot has a rule against a club having only one member, but why don’t you just ignore this club? Why are you and other atheists so intolerant? Why can’t you stand to hear a different point of view? We all know what this is about. It’s about me posting criticisms of the theory of evolution. It’s what gets atheists so worked up. And why? It’s just a “scientific” theory, right? If I posted criticisms of the theory of relativity, would you guys would have the same emotional reaction and intolerance? I doubt it. Because Darwin’s theory is more than a “scientific” theory to you and other atheists. It’s an indispensable part of your world view and, for some of you, it’s your pantheistic religion. Just admit it. It’s so obvious. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 04:57 |
From riaannieman: “I believe this thread is about having a great laugh at the expense of a fanatic who doesn't have the faintest clue about biology, physics, geology, astrophysics, mathematical principals and many more subjects- not that I understand much of it, but it is clear that I understand more than him! The difference being that I am not a religious fanatic, I do not interpret the Bible literally at all (in fact I question it in many aspects), and I know enough and I am intelligent enough to know that I don't know everything and should read, listen and ask questions of people who are much better equipped than myself to answer clearly, concisely and with scientific precision what I don't know- in total contrast to the person who is too rigid, too indoctrinated by his own interpretations and too stupid to see his own mistakes, fallacies and the fables he weave to keep it all together and connected. Maybe I shouldn't laugh- maybe I should weep that the process of natural selection have not yet eliminated this person from the gene pool; maybe it is a travesty that this person could still contribute genetic material to the human race. Because it is such a sad, sad little man that is trying so extremely hard to convince himself and real scientists about what the truth is. Aw shame!” Think this post violates GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct? Let’s see… “Rules of Conduct: You may not harass, insult, badger, threaten, or intentionally annoy, irritate, or rush other players. You may not use any sexually explicit, vulgar, obscene, rude, harmful, disturbing, threatening, abusive, defamatory, hateful, inflammatory, racially or ethnically offensive language and/or images. Please keep everything PG-13. No exceptions for abbreviated or misspelled words with clear intended meaning.” But don’t worry, fellas - GameKnot took away my ability to report posts, despite the fact I didn’t report a single one. So violate away! Let’s get some more hate going! riaannieman thinks I should be eliminated from the gene pool. Exterminate me! Assassinate me! I don’t believe the theory of evolution and so deserve to be killed. Maybe tortured too! You guys are genuinely sick and evil people. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 05:11 |
From zorroloco: “I see a fanatic w a child’s understanding of his mythology is criticizing your religious maturity. Why are you guys still wasting your time playing chess with a pigeon? The man is ignorant, arrogant, judgmental, and an a self-righteous ass unable to learn or grow. Seriously.” Hmmmmm. Does this post violate GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct? 🤔 “Rules of Conduct: You may not harass, insult, badger, threaten, or intentionally annoy, irritate, or rush other players. You may not use any sexually explicit, vulgar, obscene, rude, harmful, disturbing, threatening, abusive, defamatory, hateful, inflammatory, racially or ethnically offensive language and/or images. Please keep everything PG-13. No exceptions for abbreviated or misspelled words with clear intended meaning.” I think it does! But atheists are allowed to violate GameKnot’s “Rules of Conduct.” But I have this message for zorroloco: You’re off your game! riaannieman thinks I should be eliminated from the gene pool. You gotta up your “hate game” if you’re gonna compete with him. How did he surpass you so quickly? You used to be the King of Hate in this forum. But riaannieman is putting up quite a challenge for your throne. Come on! Stop resting on your laurels! Get the hate going - more vicious, more bloodthirsty, more savage! Go for it! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 05:20 |
Huh? ‘Cause I defend myself against your seemingly limitless lies and hate and the lies and hate from other moderators at FIAT LUX III? I don’t think you know what a martyr is. <<And he’s not too smart.>> Obviously I disagree. <<But he won’t be contributing to the gene pool... women are smart.>> Like the woman you married who supports you and gives you an allowance to buy drugs? I don’t think that’s very smart. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 28-Oct-21, 05:28 |
I interact with people all the time - on here and in real life. What are you talking about? <<Sad, pathetic and an incredible lack of self awareness.>> Psychological projection. I guess you’d rather continue spewing hate on the Internet than get help for whatever trauma you suffered 45 years ago that caused you to be stoned “most of the time” (your words) for the past 45 years and to lash out with so much hate against people - and to do it so frequently - from the comfort and safety of your home. That’s what’s sad. People overcome trauma all the time and live happy and fulfilling lives. But they get help first. I really hope you think about getting help. Because it’s obvious your coping mechanisms of getting stoned and spewing hate aren’t working. Time to try something else. |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
