Peyton Manning's faith

[Wrangler95]

I always liked Tim Tebow for his faith in God,Didnt know Peyton was a Christian but I admire him even more now.GO BRONCOS

 

[jkleno]

that's not correct since the definition of sin varies for each person. They may meet your definition of sin but not their own

What??? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[martyvols]

Follow me on this train of thought...

Is God a perfect Father?

What is your idea of a perfect Father?

Say you get home from work and your boy doesn't greet you immediately for whatever reason, but he behaved at school, was nice to his sister, and helped his Mom with chores. Then he wants to pal around with his Dad. Do you say, "Forget it. You didn't greet me when you had the chance, now get out of my presence."

I think most Christians' interpretation of God leaves something to be desired. We pick and choose what we take literally and figuratively from the Bible, and the idea that good people can/will be banished from God's presence doesn't jive. I think the Bible has been either (1) mistranslated, (2) misinterpreted, or (3) is false.

Let's say it's a little bit of 1 and 2.

Your illustration doesn't work. Non-believers are not only refusing to acknowledge Him as Father, they are refusing to acknowledge His very existence. As a pastor I am crushed by the animosity toward God but I may be more disappointed in some of the comments by Christians. I pray you find the Truth some day but I can see why you refused to believe when some of the replies are hate filled.

 

[volprof]

I'm not going to claim to know a lot, but I do know that most of these new versions that come out take out entire verses and change meanings to what the KJV is. Some don't even include the trinity! That's why I stick with the KJV and ask God to show me the meaning if its confusing.

With these new-fangled transcriptions, makes you really appreciate the purity of the KJV.

 

[n_huffhines]

Your illustration doesn't work. Non-believers are not only refusing to acknowledge Him as Father, they are refusing to acknowledge His very existence. As a pastor I am crushed by the animosity toward God but I may be more disappointed in some of the comments by Christians. I pray you find the Truth some day but I can see why you refused to believe when some of the replies are hate filled.

My take on God has nothing to do with what believers do or say and that's the way it should be.

I can't acknowledge his existence because I don't know that he's there. It's not a refusal. I'm open to the idea of God. I even like the idea of God and hope he does exist. I just have no reason to believe that he does. Since I don't know I am not going to spend my life worrying about it. I'm going to be happy, treat others well, and help them live happy lives.

If God exists and condemns me for living a life like that and saves murderers (I'm thinking of a pastor in Nashville) because they've accepted him, then I don't think I want to be in God's presence.

 

[volprof]

My take on God has nothing to do with what believers do or say and that's the way it should be.

I can't acknowledge his existence because I don't know that he's there. It's not a refusal. I'm open to the idea of God. I even like the idea of God and hope he does exist. I just have no reason to believe that he does. Since I don't know I am not going to spend my life worrying about it. I'm going to be happy, treat others well, and help them live happy lives.

If God exists and condemns me for living a life like that and saves murderers (I'm thinking of a pastor in Nashville) because they've accepted him, then I don't think I want to be in God's presence.

Kind of a "if Hell is a real place, then God doesn't deserve my affection" sort of thing?

 

[n_huffhines]

Kind of a "if Hell is a real place, then God doesn't deserve my affection" sort of thing?

Not quite...I wouldn't say that. When I was religious, to me, hell was a state of mind. Like you spend eternity outside of God's presence regretting the bad things you've done. I never believed God sends you to a place with literal fire and brimstone.

 

[volprof]

Not quite...I wouldn't say that. When I was religious, to me, hell was a state of mind. Like you spend eternity outside of God's presence regretting the bad things you've done. I never believed God sends you to a place with literal fire and brimstone.

Either way, it's still painful.

 

[MikeVol44]

Mike, I made no reference to chance mutation whatsoever. I believe that it is safe to say that, if you ask any biologist who believes in evolutionary theory, he/she will say that natural selection is by far the most pervasive of evolutionary processes, far more so than mutation, drift or gene flow. Yes, "genes already reside in the genome and await expression in the phenotype." They do so in response to environmentally specific selective pressures. I agree that there is nothing random about that whatsoever.

It is interesting to note, however, that you seized largely upon the evils of social Darwinism to discredit the entire concept of evolutionary theory. That legacy has left an enduring schism within my discipline. Many sociocultural anthropologists are very reluctant to embrace an evolutionary perspective in analysis of culture, simply because of the stigma associated with the Spencerian period of anthropology, not to mention the later perversion of the basic concept by ethnocentric powers who used it to justify their political agendas. On the other hand, I don't believe that you will find a biological/physical anthropologist, let alone a paleoanthropologist or paleontologist who doesn't believe in the fundamental premise of morphological change over time, i.e. evolution. With very few exceptions, scholars in the latter disciplines don't have the luxury of actually being able to assess change in the genetic frequencies of alleles, the most fundamental expression of evolution.

For the record, I categorically reject the extreme emphasis on random chance advocated by the passage that you cited from MacArthur. It would be far more accurate to speak in terms of environmental adaptationism as the broad-spectrum fuel for evolutionary change.

I realize that there is no middle ground for you on this issue, but I will reiterate that, in my opinion, creationism, whether you adhere strictly to the Biblical account or not, and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive constructs, particularly if you subscribe to notions such as “Intelligent Design” and a “finely-tuned universe.” Within this context, natural selection (and other evolutionary processes) can be viewed as analogous to natural laws, ones established by our Creator to regulate biological change, both on a genetic and morphological level. I believe in both premises and I find no logical inconsistency in that position.

Hey, my friend....I do respect your opinion and your knowledge as better than the average bear...probably better than mine, as I studied genetics a long time ago! LOL!

I was responding to this comment that you made in the prior post:

On the most fundamental level, evolution can be defined as change over time in the statistical frequency of alleles, variant forms of a specific gene or gene locus. The cumulative effect of such change, as a result of differential survivorship rates in response to environment-specific selective pressures, can eventually differentiate breeding populations to such a degree that the emergence of taxonomically recognizable species can be seen in living populations or the fossil record.

I wonder what a variant form of a specific gene is? Variant forms--are these changes in the nucleotide sequences on the DNA strand? Or does this simply mean that another genotype--i.e., nucleotide sequence--gets expressed in the phenotype as a local group of organisms is "locked in" to their geographic location and interbreed--increasing the likelihood that more genotypes already existing within the species get expressed in the same organism as different phenotypes (taxonomically speaking). Like say--brown eyes, blonde hair, etc...etc....

Simply stated--and I am NOT assigning malice aforethought to you--you are describing the very phenomenon known as genetic diversity within a select species.

I would surmise that you are aware that absolutely NO evidence exists anywhere in the fossil record or in the active lifeforms on earth to prove that one species EVOLVED into another species--either spontaneously under environmental pressure, or over the alleged "millions" of years driven by chance (MACROEVOLUTION).

And, I would kindly disagree with you when you say that Biblical Creationism and evolutionary theory are NOT mutually exclusive constructs--as you already know that I would.

Simply stated--the Genesis account of Creation in Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:4 DOESN'T allow room for coexistence of the two doctrines--and Darwin certainly NEVER intended for them to exist peaceably together.

Genesis 1 categorically and emphatically states that God created everything--and that animals, plants, insects, birds, fish, and MAN reproduce according to their own kind!

Genesis 1:12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Evolutionary theory states that millions of years later and by the power of random chance the seeds that once produced apple trees now have evolved to produce orange trees--i.e., the "seed" of an amoeba changed spontaneously one day to produce an eucaryote, which kept on changing in its "seed" to eventually produce a homosapien. No offense to you, my friend, but that's absolutely preposterous.

Genesis 1:26-28 (and Genesis 2:7) categorically and emphatically states the exact OPPOSITE.

Also--evolutionary naturalists subscribe to the "theory" of uniformitarianism--the belief that everything in the Universe continues to exist and change in a linear fashion and is continuing to do so.

This theory, according to the Bible, is a flat out falsehood. Genesis 2:1-4 states beyond question that the entire process of creation and the entire gene pool in the Universe was completed and finished on the 6th day of Creation--and that God rested from all of His Creative work on the 7th day. (II Peter 3:3-7 demonstrates that scoffers of Peter's day in the 1st Century also believed in uniformitarianism).

Genesis 2:1-4 is not the only passage that refutes this theory--Genesis 6-8 also refutes it by describing the catastrophic, atmospheric, and cataclysmic changes that occurred on the earth as a result of God's judgment on the sin of the antideluvians.

Simply stated--the world in which we now live is DRASTICALLY different that the world that existed before the FLOOD in the days of Noah. And the evidence of the sudden and catastrophic changes occurring as a result of the flood described in Genesis 7-8 are overwhelmingly seen in the geological strata (especially the Grand Canyon) and in the fossil record.

I'm certain--as an anthropologist--that you are aware that almost EVERY culture on the planet has a flood story--and that over 2/3 of every story claims that the flood happened because of the sins of mankind.

Ultimately--the anthropology and psychology of man is very simple according to the Bible:

Every man (including me!) desires to live autonomously without regard to a moral standard by which he one day will be held accountable and judged.

Aldous Huxley stated this truth in his writing as he described Atheism to be the only belief he could hold that would allow him to live an immoral life without fear of eternal damnation for doing so.

I would like to state, for the record, that I do enjoy these conversations--as I learn from them. And, I honestly learn to respect how people think as we discuss differing viewpoints.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend!

God Bless! :hi:eace2:

 

[thebjd]

Hey, my friend....I do respect your opinion and your knowledge as better than the average bear...probably better than mine, as I studied genetics a long time ago! LOL!

I was responding to this comment that you made in the prior post:

On the most fundamental level, evolution can be defined as change over time in the statistical frequency of alleles, variant forms of a specific gene or gene locus. The cumulative effect of such change, as a result of differential survivorship rates in response to environment-specific selective pressures, can eventually differentiate breeding populations to such a degree that the emergence of taxonomically recognizable species can be seen in living populations or the fossil record.

I wonder what a variant form of a specific gene is? Variant forms--are these changes in the nucleotide sequences on the DNA strand? Or does this simply mean that another genotype--i.e., nucleotide sequence--gets expressed in the phenotype as a local group of organisms is "locked in" to their geographic location and interbreed--increasing the likelihood that more genotypes already existing within the species get expressed in the same organism as different phenotypes (taxonomically speaking). Like say--brown eyes, blonde hair, etc...etc....

Simply stated--and I am NOT assigning malice aforethought to you--you are describing the very phenomenon known as genetic diversity within a select species.

I would surmise that you are aware that absolutely NO evidence exists anywhere in the fossil record or in the active lifeforms on earth to prove that one species EVOLVED into another species--either spontaneously under environmental pressure, or over the alleged "millions" of years driven by chance (MACROEVOLUTION).

And, I would kindly disagree with you when you say that Biblical Creationism and evolutionary theory are NOT mutually exclusive constructs--as you already know that I would.

Simply stated--the Genesis account of Creation in Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:4 DOESN'T allow room for coexistence of the two doctrines--and Darwin certainly NEVER intended for them to exist peaceably together.

Genesis 1 categorically and emphatically states that God created everything--and that animals, plants, insects, birds, fish, and MAN reproduce according to their own kind!

Genesis 1:12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Evolutionary theory states that millions of years later and by the power of random chance the seeds that once produced apple trees now have evolved to produce orange trees--i.e., the "seed" of an amoeba changed spontaneously one day to produce an eucaryote, which kept on changing in its "seed" to eventually produce a homosapien. No offense to you, my friend, but that's absolutely preposterous.

Genesis 1:26-28 (and Genesis 2:7) categorically and emphatically states the exact OPPOSITE.

Also--evolutionary naturalists subscribe to the "theory" of uniformitarianism--the belief that everything in the Universe continues to exist and change in a linear fashion and is continuing to do so.

This theory, according to the Bible, is a flat out falsehood. Genesis 2:1-4 states beyond question that the entire process of creation and the entire gene pool in the Universe was completed and finished on the 6th day of Creation--and that God rested from all of His Creative work on the 7th day. (II Peter 3:3-7 demonstrates that scoffers of Peter's day in the 1st Century also believed in uniformitarianism).

Genesis 2:1-4 is not the only passage that refutes this theory--Genesis 6-8 also refutes it by describing the catastrophic, atmospheric, and cataclysmic changes that occurred on the earth as a result of God's judgment on the sin of the antideluvians.

Simply stated--the world in which we now live is DRASTICALLY different that the world that existed before the FLOOD in the days of Noah. And the evidence of the sudden and catastrophic changes occurring as a result of the flood described in Genesis 7-8 are overwhelmingly seen in the geological strata (especially the Grand Canyon) and in the fossil record.

I'm certain--as an anthropologist--that you are aware that almost EVERY culture on the planet has a flood story--and that over 2/3 of every story claims that the flood happened because of the sins of mankind.

Ultimately--the anthropology and psychology of man is very simple according to the Bible:

Every man (including me!) desires to live autonomously without regard to a moral standard by which he one day will be held accountable and judged.

Aldous Huxley stated this truth in his writing as he described Atheism to be the only belief he could hold that would allow him to live an immoral life without fear of eternal damnation for doing so.

I would like to state, for the record, that I do enjoy these conversations--as I learn from them. And, I honestly learn to respect how people think as we discuss differing viewpoints.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend!

God Bless! :hi:eace2:

My daughter successfully bred a butterfly and a Komodo dragon on her Tiny Zoo Friends game.

 

[MikeVol44]

What Bible do consider the most accurate translation of the original works?

Sorry for the delay, WoodsmanVol, in answering your question.

I'm not a Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic Scholar. However, I will tell you that I prefer to read and study from both the NASB and the ESV. I study from the NASB because STRONG'S concordance has reference numbers for the words so that you can look up their etymology and meaning--one good internet site that I predominantly use is blueletterbible.org

I have no problem with the KJV, or the NKJV. I don't read from the KJV anymore because some of the words in the translation seem to contradict other passages--which was never present in the original language.

However, one of my favorite passages from the KJV is found in John 5:6 when Jesus asked the man who had been crippled for 38 years: "Wilt thou be made whole?"

To me, that wording is absolutely beautiful--and I try to put myself in the place of that crippled man when he stared into the eyes of the LORD God Himself--what could he have been thinking at that specific moment?
That story in John 5:6-9 is just beautiful to me...I also like Matthew 8:1-3 when the leper who wanted to be made clean approached Jesus.

The NASB and the ESV are actually translations from OLDER manuscripts (of the OT) than the ones used in the 1600s for producing the KJV. In fact, they are at least 1,000 years older than the Masoretic Text used for the KJV.

The key thing for me is that they must at least represent an attempt to translate word for word--instead of phrase for phrase.

You may already know that the words in italics within the text of any "word for word" translation are not there in the original languages--but they are added to capture the thought being expressed from the original language.

Also, remember--NOT ONE translation that I've mentioned above results from the work of ONE man. There were multiple scholars of the original languages used to pour over the texts and attempt to come up with the most accurate translation of the text.

Hope that answers your question. eace2:

 

[MikeVol44]

I have a question. After reading Mike and Volsaurus, is there going to be a test and do I get any college credits? I am only a few away from an Associates so this will help.

Yes, there will be a test-----of the emergency broadcast system----and this id only a test!

I grade on a curve, don't worry--You'll pass! lol:

 

[armchair]

Are christians still leaning on "intelligent design"--that bogus public relations gimmick adapted in desperation a few years back to put a scientific veneer on creationism? Frontline did an investigation a few years back and found various papers from the religious right in which individuals had drawn lines through the word "creationism" had replaced it with "intelligent design." The poor christian community has been scared witless by evolution, which is entirely understandable. This notion that "god" created the earth in 7 days is akin to the fairy tales we read to our kids when they are 3. I mean, c'mon. Most people get that when they get to be, oh, age 12 and start thinking about some of this silliness. The gentleman above has the temerity to call evolutionary theory (and it is by now much more fact than theory) "preposterous" while--with a straight face--professing his deep belief in some completely imaginary entity called "god," apparently because somebody wrote a book a long time ago! Egads! Talk about turning logic on its head. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and not a scintilla of evidence to suggest a "god" and there never will be. Yes: hence, faith. Have your faith--enjoy it, be comforted by it--but it must be emphasized that it is illogical nonsense. When you have large numbers of people trying to cast aspersions on legitimate science because it conflicts with the religious nonsense that is so dear to them, you know that America is dangerously close to going off the rails. It's the same mindset that resulted in some Middle Ages scientific types being burned as heretics when they said that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

My take on God has nothing to do with what believers do or say and that's the way it should be.

I can't acknowledge his existence because I don't know that he's there. It's not a refusal. I'm open to the idea of God. I even like the idea of God and hope he does exist. I just have no reason to believe that he does. Since I don't know I am not going to spend my life worrying about it. I'm going to be happy, treat others well, and help them live happy lives.

If God exists and condemns me for living a life like that and saves murderers (I'm thinking of a pastor in Nashville) because they've accepted him, then I don't think I want to be in God's presence.

This is my feeling as well.

With that said, this thread has gone way over my head.

 

[Slydell]

Your illustration doesn't work. Non-believers are not only refusing to acknowledge Him as Father, they are refusing to acknowledge His very existence. As a pastor I am crushed by the animosity toward God but I may be more disappointed in some of the comments by Christians. I pray you find the Truth some day but I can see why you refused to believe when some of the replies are hate filled.

This confuses my small mind. Why would a non-believer acknowledge the existence or acknowledge a god as anything if they don't believe? Why would it even be expected? If you don't believe, to me, there's nothing there to believe in. Maybe, something shot over my head. And, not sure the animosity is toward a god. Perhaps, the followers. Just trying to reason this out.:hi:

 

[volprof]

Are christians still leaning on "intelligent design"--that bogus public relations gimmick adapted in desperation a few years back to put a scientific veneer on creationism? Frontline did an investigation a few years back and found various papers from the religious right in which individuals had drawn lines through the word "creationism" had replaced it with "intelligent design." The poor christian community has been scared witless by evolution, which is entirely understandable. This notion that "god" created the earth in 7 days is akin to the fairy tales we read to our kids when they are 3. I mean, c'mon. Most people get that when they get to be, oh, age 12 and start thinking about some of this silliness. The gentleman above has the temerity to call evolutionary theory (and it is by now much more fact than theory) "preposterous" while--with a straight face--professing his deep belief in some completely imaginary entity called "god," apparently because somebody wrote a book a long time ago! Egads! Talk about turning logic on its head. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and not a scintilla of evidence to suggest a "god" and there never will be. Yes: hence, faith. Have your faith--enjoy it, be comforted by it--but it must be emphasized that it is illogical nonsense. When you have large numbers of people trying to cast aspersions on legitimate science because it conflicts with the religious nonsense that is so dear to them, you know that America is dangerously close to going off the rails. It's the same mindset that resulted in some Middle Ages scientific types being burned as heretics when they said that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Facts are stubborn things.

But I thought we were "dangerously close to going off the rails" because of our turning away from God. This thread has me so confused.

 

[Slydell]

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Hey, my friend....I do respect your opinion and your knowledge as better than the average bear...probably better than mine, as I studied genetics a long time ago! LOL!

I was responding to this comment that you made in the prior post:

On the most fundamental level, evolution can be defined as change over time in the statistical frequency of alleles, variant forms of a specific gene or gene locus. The cumulative effect of such change, as a result of differential survivorship rates in response to environment-specific selective pressures, can eventually differentiate breeding populations to such a degree that the emergence of taxonomically recognizable species can be seen in living populations or the fossil record.

I wonder what a variant form of a specific gene is? Variant forms--are these changes in the nucleotide sequences on the DNA strand? Or does this simply mean that another genotype--i.e., nucleotide sequence--gets expressed in the phenotype as a local group of organisms is "locked in" to their geographic location and interbreed--increasing the likelihood that more genotypes already existing within the species get expressed in the same organism as different phenotypes (taxonomically speaking). Like say--brown eyes, blonde hair, etc...etc....

Simply stated--and I am NOT assigning malice aforethought to you--you are describing the very phenomenon known as genetic diversity within a select species.

I would surmise that you are aware that absolutely NO evidence exists anywhere in the fossil record or in the active lifeforms on earth to prove that one species EVOLVED into another species--either spontaneously under environmental pressure, or over the alleged "millions" of years driven by chance (MACROEVOLUTION).

And, I would kindly disagree with you when you say that Biblical Creationism and evolutionary theory are NOT mutually exclusive constructs--as you already know that I would.

Simply stated--the Genesis account of Creation in Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:4 DOESN'T allow room for coexistence of the two doctrines--and Darwin certainly NEVER intended for them to exist peaceably together.

Genesis 1 categorically and emphatically states that God created everything--and that animals, plants, insects, birds, fish, and MAN reproduce according to their own kind!

Genesis 1:12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Evolutionary theory states that millions of years later and by the power of random chance the seeds that once produced apple trees now have evolved to produce orange trees--i.e., the "seed" of an amoeba changed spontaneously one day to produce an eucaryote, which kept on changing in its "seed" to eventually produce a homosapien. No offense to you, my friend, but that's absolutely preposterous.

Genesis 1:26-28 (and Genesis 2:7) categorically and emphatically states the exact OPPOSITE.

Also--evolutionary naturalists subscribe to the "theory" of uniformitarianism--the belief that everything in the Universe continues to exist and change in a linear fashion and is continuing to do so.

This theory, according to the Bible, is a flat out falsehood. Genesis 2:1-4 states beyond question that the entire process of creation and the entire gene pool in the Universe was completed and finished on the 6th day of Creation--and that God rested from all of His Creative work on the 7th day. (II Peter 3:3-7 demonstrates that scoffers of Peter's day in the 1st Century also believed in uniformitarianism).

Genesis 2:1-4 is not the only passage that refutes this theory--Genesis 6-8 also refutes it by describing the catastrophic, atmospheric, and cataclysmic changes that occurred on the earth as a result of God's judgment on the sin of the antideluvians.

Simply stated--the world in which we now live is DRASTICALLY different that the world that existed before the FLOOD in the days of Noah. And the evidence of the sudden and catastrophic changes occurring as a result of the flood described in Genesis 7-8 are overwhelmingly seen in the geological strata (especially the Grand Canyon) and in the fossil record.

I'm certain--as an anthropologist--that you are aware that almost EVERY culture on the planet has a flood story--and that over 2/3 of every story claims that the flood happened because of the sins of mankind.

Ultimately--the anthropology and psychology of man is very simple according to the Bible:

Every man (including me!) desires to live autonomously without regard to a moral standard by which he one day will be held accountable and judged.

Aldous Huxley stated this truth in his writing as he described Atheism to be the only belief he could hold that would allow him to live an immoral life without fear of eternal damnation for doing so.

I would like to state, for the record, that I do enjoy these conversations--as I learn from them. And, I honestly learn to respect how people think as we discuss differing viewpoints.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend!

God Bless! :hi:eace2:

Mike, I fear that ultimately we will succeed only in lobbing salvos over each other’s proverbial bow. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, an allele is “one of a number of alternative forms of the same gene or same genetic locus (generally a group of genes). It is the alternative form of a gene for a character producing different effects. Sometimes different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, many genetic variations result in little or no observable variation. . . . For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles, IA, IB, and IO, that determine compatibility of blood transfusions. Any individual has one of six possible genotypes (AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, and OO) that produce one of four possible phenotypes: "A" (produced by AA homozygous and AO heterozygous genotypes), "B" (produced by BB homozygous and BO heterozygous genotypes), "AB" heterozygotes, and "OO" homozygotes” (Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Certain environmental conditions can exert highly specific pressures which select for the expression of particular genotypes, ones which have differential survivorship rates and thus impact phenotypic expression. The relationship between genotypes for sickle-cell anemia and susceptibility to malaria is a classic example. Among human populations where malaria is most common, notably sub-Saharan Africa, the absence of an allele for sickle-cell anemia makes one far more susceptible to malaria, a disease that claims roughly 1.5 million lives annually. Persons with two dominant alleles for the expression of sickle-cell, on the other hand, have strong protection against malaria but suffer the debilitating effects of this form of anemia. Those fortunate enough to inherit “heterozygous (Aa) [alleles] for sickle-cell trait also have moderately good resistance to malaria because some of their red cells are misshapen and deflated, but they rarely develop the severe life threatening anemia and related problems typical of homozygous (aa) sicklers” (Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection). That, my friend, is not simply genetic diversity; it is a genetic compromise produced by natural selection, the most pervasive of evolutionary forces, one that often is highly targeted and, as such, is the very antithesis of random chance.

You simply ascribe far too significant a role to the random element (i.e. genetic mutation) of evolution. That is a stance which, quite frankly, is often taken by persons opposed to evolution on theological grounds who have not adequately investigated the tenets of biological evolutionary theory. You stated that “Evolutionary theory states that millions of years later and by the power of random chance the seeds that once produced apple trees now have evolved to produce orange trees--i.e., the "seed" of an amoeba changed spontaneously one day to produce an eucaryote, which kept on changing in its "seed" to eventually produce a homosapien. No offense to you, my friend, but that's absolutely preposterous.” I agree that would be preposterous . . . if that is what evolutionary theory proposed. Quite simply, it isn’t. Natural selection, fueled by the need to adapt to environmentally specific conditions, is the primary fuel that drives the evolutionary engine.

As for uniformitarianism, I already stated that “the geological history of planet earth is literally pock-marked with evidence of catastrophism, whether it be in the form of asteroid/meteor strikes or massive volcanic eruptions, [so] it is hardly surprising that we have a very fragmentary record of life on this precious globe.” Because of the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, it is hardly surprising that definitive evidence of “transitional” species are lacking. Did you know, for example, that our understanding of Tyrannosaurus rex was, prior to the discovery of "Sue," based on “only a handful of partial T. rex specimens, [none of which are] more than 60% complete[?] . . . At 90% complete and exquisitely preserved, “Sue” . . . is the best preserved Tyrannosaurus rex . . . [o]ut of the more than 30 T. rex skeletons discovered so far” (The Durham Museum). Despite these limitations in the available data, there is, nevertheless, evidence for phyletic gradualism, perhaps the best known example of which is the progressive emergence of a host of equine species over the last 52-55 million years, beginning with Eohippus (see Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years).

With respect to MacArthur’s statement that “Evolution is as irrational as it is amoral” and your subsequent conclusion that you “see no way of claiming that a theory of evolution that elevates chance (simply mathematical probability) to the level of God can peacefully exist with the God of the Bible as the Creator,” I would respectfully submit the following: Neither science nor evolutionary theory is intrinsically amoral; their practitioners may or may not be but that is, of course, another debate. Science does, however, limit its investigation to empirically observable phenomenon. By definition, God is a supraempirical entity. Personally, I have seen too much evidence of God’s hand in creation, indeed his artistry, to ever doubt his existence. Although he is the ultimate source of all life, I also believe that evolutionary mechanisms regulate change in organic life.

 

[MikeVol44]

Mike, I fear that ultimately we will succeed only in lobbing salvos over each other’s proverbial bow. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, an allele is “one of a number of alternative forms of the same gene or same genetic locus (generally a group of genes). It is the alternative form of a gene for a character producing different effects. Sometimes different alleles can result in different observable phenotypic traits, such as different pigmentation. However, many genetic variations result in little or no observable variation. . . . For example, at the gene locus for the ABO blood type carbohydrate antigens in humans, classical genetics recognizes three alleles, IA, IB, and IO, that determine compatibility of blood transfusions. Any individual has one of six possible genotypes (AA, AO, BB, BO, AB, and OO) that produce one of four possible phenotypes: "A" (produced by AA homozygous and AO heterozygous genotypes), "B" (produced by BB homozygous and BO heterozygous genotypes), "AB" heterozygotes, and "OO" homozygotes” (Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Certain environmental conditions can exert highly specific pressures which select for the expression of particular genotypes, ones which have differential survivorship rates and thus impact phenotypic expression. The relationship between genotypes for sickle-cell anemia and susceptibility to malaria is a classic example. Among human populations where malaria is most common, notably sub-Saharan Africa, the absence of an allele for sickle-cell anemia makes one far more susceptible to malaria, a disease that claims roughly 1.5 million lives annually. Persons with two dominant alleles for the expression of sickle-cell, on the other hand, have strong protection against malaria but suffer the debilitating effects of this form of anemia. Those fortunate enough to inherit “heterozygous (Aa) [alleles] for sickle-cell trait also have moderately good resistance to malaria because some of their red cells are misshapen and deflated, but they rarely develop the severe life threatening anemia and related problems typical of homozygous (aa) sicklers” (Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection). That, my friend, is not simply genetic diversity; it is a genetic compromise produced by natural selection, the most pervasive of evolutionary forces, one that often is highly targeted and, as such, is the very antithesis of random chance.

You simply ascribe far too significant a role to the random element (i.e. genetic mutation) of evolution. That is a stance which, quite frankly, is often taken by persons opposed to evolution on theological grounds who have not adequately investigated the tenets of biological evolutionary theory. You stated that “Evolutionary theory states that millions of years later and by the power of random chance the seeds that once produced apple trees now have evolved to produce orange trees--i.e., the "seed" of an amoeba changed spontaneously one day to produce an eucaryote, which kept on changing in its "seed" to eventually produce a homosapien. No offense to you, my friend, but that's absolutely preposterous.” I agree that would be preposterous . . . if that is what evolutionary theory proposed. Quite simply, it isn’t. Natural selection, fueled by the need to adapt to environmentally specific conditions, is the primary fuel that drives the evolutionary engine.

As for uniformitarianism, I already stated that “the geological history of planet earth is literally pock-marked with evidence of catastrophism, whether it be in the form of asteroid/meteor strikes or massive volcanic eruptions, [so] it is hardly surprising that we have a very fragmentary record of life on this precious globe.” Because of the fragmentary nature of the fossil record, it is hardly surprising that definitive evidence of “transitional” species are lacking. Did you know, for example, that our understanding of Tyrannosaurus rex was, prior to the discovery of "Sue," based on “only a handful of partial T. rex specimens, [none of which are] more than 60% complete[?] . . . At 90% complete and exquisitely preserved, “Sue” . . . is the best preserved Tyrannosaurus rex . . . [o]ut of the more than 30 T. rex skeletons discovered so far” (The Durham Museum). Despite these limitations in the available data, there is, nevertheless, evidence for phyletic gradualism, perhaps the best known example of which is the progressive emergence of a host of equine species over the last 52-55 million years, beginning with Eohippus (see Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years).

With respect to MacArthur’s statement that “Evolution is as irrational as it is amoral” and your subsequent conclusion that you “see no way of claiming that a theory of evolution that elevates chance (simply mathematical probability) to the level of God can peacefully exist with the God of the Bible as the Creator,” I would respectfully submit the following: Neither science nor evolutionary theory is intrinsically amoral; their practitioners may or may not be but that is, of course, another debate. Science does, however, limit its investigation to empirically observable phenomenon. By definition, God is a supraempirical entity. Personally, I have seen too much evidence of God’s hand in creation, indeed his artistry, to ever doubt his existence. Although he is the ultimate source of all life, I also believe that evolutionary mechanisms regulate change in organic life.

Fair enough--you have made your position perfectly clear.

Evolutionary theory does not mince words about claiming that human beings evolved from a single prokaryote as a result of a series of genetic changes (which were driven by the survival need of the species) that occurred over millions of years. No matter how sophisticated the presentation may be--The entire theory lives or dies on this singular notion.

And, this theory, which has absolutely NO reliable scientific evidence in objective support of its claims--stands in direct CONTRADICTION to the simple statements in the Bible concerning the origin of ALL life in the Universe, and specifically life on planet earth--which eliminates ANY possibility of the evolution of a species of horses over millions of years!

I could go into an in-depth description of the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry that constitute and hold the DNA double-helix (and that govern the existence and sequencing found in alleles at their specific addresses on the uncoiled helix) together--and rightly defend the scientific IMPOSSIBILITY of evolution from a thermodynamic stand-point.

However, in the end, all men are faced with the reality you confess above--the fact that God exists is EVIDENT from the Creation, and not in spite of it (Romans 1:18-23). The problem with man is not intellectual, it's MORAL.

What makes evolutionary naturalism INTRINSICALLY amoral is that it clearly denies the existence of a moral, eternal, omnipotent, and infinitely wise Creator God as the SOURCE of all life.

Evolutionary naturalism has its own "evangelists", the most notable in our time to have been Carl Sagan, who was fond of ascribing the attributes of Deity to the creation in his statement:

"The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Clearly--Sagan looked at creation and proclaimed it to be GOD. (Read Romans 1:18-23 again to see what God has said about this 2,000 years before Carl Sagan lived).

Sagan also said--

that our race is not significant at all. In December 1996, less than three weeks before Sagan died, he was interviewed by Ted Koppel on Nightline. Sagan knew he was dying, and Koppel asked him, “Dr. Sagan, do you have any pearls of wisdom that you would like to give to the human race?”

Sagan replied:

We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies, which make up a universe, which may be one of a very large number—perhaps an infinite number—of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering.

In a book published near the end of his life, Sagan wrote,

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.” (Pale Blue Dot).

Although Sagan resolutely tried to maintain a semblance of optimism to the bitter end, his religion led where all naturalism inevitably leads: to a sense of utter insignificance and despair.

According to his world-view, humanity occupies a tiny outpost—a pale blue speck in a vast sea of galaxies. As far as we know, we are unnoticed by the rest of the universe, accountable to no one, and petty and irrelevant in a cosmos so expansive. It is fatuous to talk of outside help or redemption for the human race. No help is forthcoming. It would be nice if we somehow managed to solve some of our problems, but whether we do or not will ultimately be a forgotten bit of cosmic trivia. That, said Sagan, is a perspective well worth pondering.

MacArthur, John (2005-03-22). The Battle for the Beginning . Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

That philosophy, to me, my friend, is utterly immoral and irresponsible--and inevitable leads to Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism.

I've thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. Please forgive me if I've offended in any way--it was certainly not my motivation to offend, but to be a voice for THE TRUTH of the Gospel of God--that there is, indeed, HOPE for the millions of the masses who, according to Thoreau, "...live lives in quiet desperation."

The Bible emphatically declares in the Gospel of God:

"Here's hope in your despair and quiet desperation: Come to Jesus to have life!" (John 1:1-18)

That's THE issue for any and every man--will you come to Jesus and believe? God Bless you, my friend! eace2:

 

[Orangedogsrule]

As I understand the Christian faith, and since even though I want to do the right thing, I often do something else. I have to ask, if there is a God, what needs to be done?

Since, "You must be perfect, even as Christ is perfect..." But "... all have sinned (missed the mark) and fallen short (archery term- shooting at the mark .. even though we are trying hard .. but still missing) of the glory of God." And since "we sin, and don't even know that we are sinning", we have no hope of making ourselves acceptable. Even Paul wrote of himself, "That that I would do (the right thing) I do not, and that that I would not do, (the wrong thing) is the very thing I do, I who am chief among sinners." Note he puts that last phrase in the present tense, not the past. and it sooo applies to me. And since "on the day that you sin you will die" we have a debt that is only satisfied by our own death; or it must be somehow acceptably paid for us. The willingness of Christ to die in our place was acceptable and was planned to be acceptable by God from the beginning, "before the foundations of the world".

God loves us so that He sent Christ, who was the only acceptable propitiation (one way gift with nothing expected in return). He is our "eldest brother", the "high priest", and the "king", each of which have very specific meanings and responsibilities in God's system of justice; and therefore His willingness to die in our place was acceptable to God the Father as payment for our debt.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." So you can't stand in front of God when He asks why he should allow you into His eternity and say, "I did this and that good works, and I tried real hard."

Nor should non-believer's point at believer's and say, "Well hypocrite! I saw you doing such and such! I thought you're supposed to be such goody two-shoes!" As George Jones country song goes: "The only thing different in sinners and saints, One is forgiven and the other one ain't". They both miss the mark and keep on missing. The Christian has hope in the words: "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus."

It's a process, but Christ through the Holy Spirit is performing it.

What does one have to be to be accepted by God?

Answer: You already are loved and accepted and a way is provided. The real questions is: Do you have faith? Do you believe? Do you accept Him?
What did Jesus say when the disciples asked Him what must one do to be saved.
His response: "Only Believe".

Very many Christians do not adhere to the Young Earth creation position.

There were many methods used to devise a 'creation date' prior to the development of the King James Bible, and still are. So where does the 'Young Earth' approximately 6000 year old creation story come from? Bishop Usher during the formulation of the King James Bible is the most well known, but unbelievers should know that believers do not consider his margin notes of earth's age in the King James as scripture. Usher's dates posted in the KJV not scripture; just as no one would consider the side notes and commentaries in say, a Scoffield Reference Bible as scripture.

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/conflict-myths-bishop-ussher-and-the-date-of-creation.htm


http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/bishop-usher-goofed.html

Jeffery Satinover in an appendix to "Cracking the Bible Code" uses one Hebraic method of calculation and arrives at a number, as I recall, very similar to that of modern sciences' approximate 13.8 billion years. (Can't find a link except to the complete book on Amazon)

Hugh Ross, an Astrophysicist has written many books on 'Old Earth' or "Long Day' creationism and his approach has always been my take on the age of the earth and creationism vs. evolution.
This is his website and it takes a while to peruse.
http://www.reasons.org/

As regards positing that those of faith are not smart, or intellectually incapable; many scientists do have faith in a creator. The journal Nature in 1997 reported a survey by E. J. Larson at the University of Georgia which showed the results were virtually unchanged from one conducted 83 years earlier in 1914. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists, and in 1997 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians were believers and they believed in a creator who cared about His creation from Whom one could expect answers to prayer. Given the specificity of the survey question in regards to a Creator who would listen to prayers, one would have to wonder how much larger the percentage would be if the question was couched as belief in only a 'higher power". I've seen as high as 49% but I can't find it on the web to provide a link.

It is not true that "smart people' don't believe in a God. About the same number of believers exist in the sciences as exist in say long haul truckers. It's a matter of faith, not intelligence or education, and always will be. Fact is, biblically, it doesn't matter what you believe about the age of creation. It doesn't matter what you believe about evolutionary timeframes. It doesn't matter what you believe about alleles, or anything scientific. We are only enjoined to "Consider all things, and hold fast what is true." Obviously, what science considers truth changes. Kepler himself (laws of planetary motion) thought the age of earth about 4000 years. But he was also an astrologer as well as an astronomer and mathematician.

As regards dinosaurs, look up 'leviathan' and 'behemoth' in the Book of Job, one of the, if not the, oldest books in the Old Testament. The term dinosaur didn't exist until last century. It's just not probable no one, ever, encountered "dragon" bones until then.

Father, forgive me when I do that which I know I shouldn't do. I am weak. I do have faith that You will continue the good work You started in me until I am no longer a lump of coal, but a diamond.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

God suffers from every first cause argument that the universe does. The only way theists get around this is by simply declaring him immune from it.

While this is true, the anti-theists suffer from the same condition as the theists. Their condition is they believe a God does not exist. The theist believes a God does exist.

It's purely a matter of faith. Both ways.

 

[TBALLVOL]

To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Do you trust a God that loves you or a science that is proven wrong every century. The real question is not: Is there a God? The real question is would you submit to God even if science proved he existed. The truth is that most don't want God to exist so that they can enjoy any excuse for any choice they make. God knows that. He loves you anyway. That is why no matter what the question, Christ is the answer.

 

[Other_Guy]

Are christians still leaning on "intelligent design"--that bogus public relations gimmick adapted in desperation a few years back to put a scientific veneer on creationism? Frontline did an investigation a few years back and found various papers from the religious right in which individuals had drawn lines through the word "creationism" had replaced it with "intelligent design." The poor christian community has been scared witless by evolution, which is entirely understandable. This notion that "god" created the earth in 7 days is akin to the fairy tales we read to our kids when they are 3. I mean, c'mon. Most people get that when they get to be, oh, age 12 and start thinking about some of this silliness. The gentleman above has the temerity to call evolutionary theory (and it is by now much more fact than theory) "preposterous" while--with a straight face--professing his deep belief in some completely imaginary entity called "god," apparently because somebody wrote a book a long time ago! Egads! Talk about turning logic on its head. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and not a scintilla of evidence to suggest a "god" and there never will be. Yes: hence, faith. Have your faith--enjoy it, be comforted by it--but it must be emphasized that it is illogical nonsense. When you have large numbers of people trying to cast aspersions on legitimate science because it conflicts with the religious nonsense that is so dear to them, you know that America is dangerously close to going off the rails. It's the same mindset that resulted in some Middle Ages scientific types being burned as heretics when they said that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Facts are stubborn things.

Creationism and evolution have the same 1st half concept of our existence. It all started from nothing. I understand there are different meanings of evolution, but in my mind, it actually takes more faith to believe everything happened by chance and somehow the nothingness knew how to evolve into what we are today, than that there is a God who created everything.

I know I've posted a lot, and I hate that I have helped tarnish what this thread was supposed to be about. I can't prove there is a God or the whole idea of salvation. The only proof I can ever give is showing Jesus thru me. Good day! :hi:

 

[Other_Guy]

To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Do you trust a God that loves you or a science that is proven wrong every century. The real question is not: Is there a God? The real question is would you submit to God even if science proved he existed. The truth is that most don't want God to exist so that they can enjoy any excuse for any choice they make. God knows that. He loves you anyway. That is why no matter what the question, Christ is the answer.

We only know a very tiny fraction of what there is to know in the universe. I've asked people, "Is it possible that in the (insert high percentage number) of the knowledge of the universe we don't know that God exists?" Gets ya thinkin.

 

[volprof]

To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Do you trust a God that loves you or a science that is proven wrong every century. The real question is not: Is there a God? The real question is would you submit to God even if science proved he existed. The truth is that most don't want God to exist so that they can enjoy any excuse for any choice they make. God knows that. He loves you anyway. That is why no matter what the question, Christ is the answer.

The ol' "you can't prove Christianity wrong,so it must be right" argument. I hear ya.

On another note, you, like many, are incredibly misinformed about agnostics/atheists.