]Change, yes; evolution, no
[Change, yes; evolution, no by
Dr. Gary Parker] "The most persuasive—and dangerous—definition for
evolution is “change through time.” Just because organisms can be observed to
change over a period of time does not mean that all life has a common ancestor.
If we think of the classic peppered moth example, we started with light and dark
moths (Biston betularia) and ended up with light— and dark—colored moths of the
same species in different proportions. This exemplifies the creationist idea of
variation within a kind.
The natural selection that produces the variety of living things we see today
began after Adam rebelled against God. The concept of natural selection was
published in a biblical context by Edward Blyth 24 years before Darwin published
Origin of Species. Blyth is forgotten and Darwin is remembered because of the
philosophic and religious implications of his idea, not the scientific
applications.
Natural selection has been shown to change organisms but always within the
boundaries of the created kinds. This type of change is often termed
“microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change that turns fish into
philosophers is known as “macroevolution.” The large-scale changes through time
are simply dramatic extrapolations of the observed phenomenon of natural
selection. This degree of extrapolation has no basis in operational science.
There are limits to the amount and type of genetic change that can occur—no
matter what amount of time is allowed. As an illustration: if you can pedal a
bicycle at 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon? Bicycles have
limits that would make this goal impossible regardless of the time you have to
accomplish it." Exposing Evolution, Second Ed.
Change, yes; evolution, no, Parker,
Response to comment [from other] []
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "I have to ask this question...why is it such a problem if God chose to make the world via natural forces? "
Is that what God said he did? Ge 1:1, Ex 20:11;
31:17. You'll believe God's word or man's opinion?
"Evolution--the next best guess for those who do not believe in the word of
God." ~ Adrienne Rogers
Response to comment [from other]:
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "He didn't say. Genesis just says He did it."
The Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
See:
How we got the Bible
Inspired Scripture
Response to comment [from other]: "What is the truth?"
Jn 14:6
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "...[S]erpentdove's favored interpretation of the Bible..."
That ol' "interpretation" chestnut...
What reason does scripture (not Rome Matt. 15:9) give you to interpret
the Bible another way?
Each passage of scripture means exactly one thing--what the author intended it
to mean.
See:
Hermeneutics
Response to comment [from other]: "What does that have to do with the OP?"
I'm sorry, you caught me reading
my mail.
You were saying?
2 Ti 4:3.
Response to comment [from other]: [Deut 28:28]
Why are you reading our mail?
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken
unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and
his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come
upon thee, and overtake thee [Deut. 28:15].
"Again we see that this is conditional.
Now we come to one of the most remarkable passages of Scripture. It is the
history of Israel in the land, pre-written. Scripture prophesied concerning
Israel’s being dispossessed out of the land three times and regathered into the
land three times. There are to be three dispossessions and three regatherings of
Israel.
The first of these was prophesied by God to Abraham. “Know of a surety that thy
seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years …. But in the fourth generation they
shall come hither again … (Gen. 15:13, 16). They went down into Egypt for 430
years; then God brought them out of Egypt. That is what we are following now in
Deuteronomy. They are on the east bank of the Jordan River, and God is bringing
them back to the land for the first regathering. In the Book of Joshua, we will
find them entering into the land, and in the Book of Judges we will find them
settled in the land, which is a complete and literal fulfillment.
Now, before they have even entered the land, the second time they are to be put
out of the land is mentioned here. This is a very remarkable chapter.
Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes
shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long: and there shall be
no might in thine hand.
The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest
not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:
So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see
[Deut. 28:32–34].
This verse was accurately fulfilled in Judah’s last king, Zedekiah, whose sons
were slain before him; then his eyes were put out. Blind and helpless, he was
carried away into Babylonian captivity."
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas
Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-598
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "So, then, your claim is that your favored interpretations of the Bible are, in fact, inspired by God...?"
The 66 books which make up the Old and New Testament are God-breathed (2 Ti 3:16).
"Genesis 1 bears several literary features that reveal its essentially poetic structure..."
Ge 1-11 is not a "story". It is an account of history. What reason does scripture (not Rome Matt. 15:9) give to spiritualize Ge 1-11? Ex 20:11; 31:17.
"...[W]hen we accept Genesis as it was meant to be
taken—as literal history—then we understand that death, disease, and violence
are intrusions into this world, and that they occurred after Adam was created.
Paul tells us in Romans 8:19–23 that the whole of the creation is groaning
because of sin.
So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s
humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the
shooter at Virginia Tech has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have
to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of
what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed
God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense,
we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us..."
Full text: How Could a Loving God ... ? More school violence in America
by Ken Ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/16/how-could-loving-god
[Each passage of scripture means exactly one thing--what the author intended it to mean.] "Ah, if only it were quite that simple (or simplistic)..."
Liberals love shades of grey where the Bible is black and white. They love to spiritualize Ge 1-11 until it means nothing and the foundations of Christianity are destroyed (Ps 11:3). You will believe God's word or man's opinion. You'll believe history or man's stories.
"A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not--and the modern world usually is not--if you want to go on and ask what is really happening--then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Mt 18:3.
Response to comment [from a Jew]: "Wrong. That verse refers only to the Old Testament."
The Old and New Testament are inspired:
[The Inspiration of Scripture by John MacArthur ] "2 Timothy. We could spend a lot of time on that text, and
have in the past, but for now just to put you in touch with these very
formidable claims so that you understand the character of inspiration, 2 Timothy
3:16 and 17. "All scripture is inspired by God." That's where we get that word
"inspiration." Now this is pasa graphe theopneustos. The word theopneustos is
God breathed, it's translated inspired here. It means God breathed. If you
didn't have any air you couldn't speak. If you couldn't bring out air you
couldn't vibrate your vocal chords, you couldn't make any sound, couldn't form
your words. What this is saying is God breathed out Scripture. God spoke it. It
is the very breath of God. And not just in the sense of breath but in the sense
of blowing out breath in a way that goes past the vocal chords, vibrates the
vocal chords, past the mouth which forms the enunciation and God produced
exactly what He wanted said. God spoke it.
In psalm 33 you have a good comparative text for this, Psalm 33:6. "By the word
of the Lord the heavens were made," and here's his synonym, "By the breath of
His mouth all their host." Here you have a statement, the word of the Lord, and
a parallel statement, the breath of His mouth. The breath of His mouth is the
word of the Lord. It was by the breath of His mouth which is the word of the
Lord that everything was created. God spoke it into existence. So God breathed
means God spoken, God said, God stated. Scripture then is God speaking. That is
why Romans 3:2 calls Scripture the oracles of God...the oracles of God. God is
the author of what the Bible says. Everything in the Bible comes from God, it is
not a human book. All scripture and every scripture is God breathed, it comes
past His vocal chords, if you will, in the supernatural sense and it conveys to
us precisely what He wanted to say. Every word of God is pure, Scripture says.
Scripture cannot be broken, John 10:35. Scripture will come to pass though
heaven and earth will fail because it is the living and abiding and eternal word
right out of the mouth of God Himself.
The church readily recognized this very early on. They knew which books were God
breathed, as the saints in the Old Testament knew which books were God breathed.
There were a lot of religious books written in antiquity. When the time of the
Old Testament writing was going on there were other books being written. There
were books written that you know show up in the apocrypha, don't they, in the
intertestimental book section of a Catholic Bible, for example. Those books are
not included in the biblical canon.
How did they know the difference? There were very, very distinct ways they knew
what was biblical. One, they knew that it needed to be written by one of God's
true spokesman, a prophet of God in the case of the Old Testament, an Apostle of
God, or an associate with the Apostles in the New Testament. They knew it had to
have therefore apostolic authorship, or apostolic affirmation. In the Old
Testament they were prophets of God, spokesmen for God who wrote those books.
Everyone knew who they were..." Full text: The
Inspiration of Scripture
Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Change through time] "[I]ts not a very useful definition..."
And--it's not reality. The naturalist needs time to solve all problems (which doesn't solve them at all). Their house of cards falls with the evidence of a young earth.
Response to comment [from other]: "[W]hat color were Adam and Eve's skin? Now, how did the various races come about?"
An
honest question.
Adam and Eve may have been a middle-brown color. Caucasians aren't "white" at
all--if they were, they'd be dead.
We have different levels of melanin. Their descendants could have had black
curly (African) hair with light (Scandinavian) skin, for example.
"We can’t say for sure, but I suspect Adam had a middle-brown skin colour. All
humans have the same skin colour. We have a pigment called melanin. If we have a
lot of this pigment we are very dark (even black). If we don’t have much of this
pigment we are very fair (white).
In The Answers Book, it is explained that from two people having the right mix
of dominant and recessive genes for the amount of melanin, all shades of colour
in humans could arise. Thus, if Adam and Eve were both a middle-brown colour,
all shades from black through to white could be accounted for in their children
and future generations. For the same reason, Adam and Eve probably had brown
eyes and dark hair.
In a similar sort of way, if Adam had blood group ‘A’, and Eve had blood group
‘B’, all of the ‘ABO’ blood groups (A, AS, B. O) could arise."
Was Adam Brown-Skinned?
by Ken Ham.
Claudia Schiffer may upset liberals who use race relations to gain power--[Claudia
Schiffer Tries To Defend Blackface Photoshoot]--but
for the creationist, the idea of a white woman (had she not altered her skin)
with dark hair would not be an unusual concept.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "I may be Betty Davis, according to serpentdove."
I
think it's Joan Crawford. You love hangers so much child killer (Pr
23:7).
You'll have to log out and log back in to call me "baby
killer" like you do.
Isn't that way they said to our soldiers when they came back from Vietnam. Gotta
love the left.
"My sperm cells are mine (Gamera)."
See:
Gamera
Response to comment [from other]: "Hey gamera. Forgive the inquisition here but are you, or have you ever been the same poster as Plastikbuddha?"
No Brain,
Pro-abort, pro-homosexual, humanists--lie.
"My sperm cells are mine (Gamera)."
See:
Gamera
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "So, then, your claim is that God has a physical body as the Mormons teach, correct? That God has hands, feet, eyes, a brain, lungs, vocal chords, etc...?"
Mormons are
cultists.
Christians believe that Jesus (the second person of the trinity) is the
Son
of God and the
Son
of Man.
He cannot be called down from heaven, housed in a wafer, and resacrificed. The
Mass is blasphemous.
See:
No
Sacrifice
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "[W]hat happens when little changes happen over a long period of time. I'm just dying to hear you say it."
What are you dying to hear? Change? Would a naturalist expect to see variations in a kind? Yes. Would a creationist expect to see variations in a kind? Yes.
But the point remains (which we've debated since 2009
[Ardi
thread
October 1st, 2009, 07:58 PM] that: "Not even one mutation has been
observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..."
Full text:
Is There Really a God?].
More importantly--why are you still dying to put a nail in
the coffin of creation--is the real issue (Ps 11:3).
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Assuming we start with salamanders, the after two groups were separated by a mountain range, I suppose one group might remain salamanders, and the other group might turn into chickens."
That is science--
--now
you are qualified to speak. Proceed.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "As a theistic evolutionist..."
Theistic evolution doesn't work:
"The Bible says that death came as the result of man’s
sin. Evolution says that death has always been a part of nature. Can both be
true? Obviously not.
If the fossil record represents millions of years of earth history, there must
have been millions of years of death, struggle, and disease before man appeared,
contrary to what Genesis teaches.
[Does This Really Matter? By Tommy Mitchell]
“Theistic evolution” is an idea that attempts to merge the Genesis account and
the concept of millions of years of evolution. Theistic evolution postulates
millions of years of death before God stepped into the process, at some point,
and created the Garden of Eden. As illustrated below, theistic evolution
requires God to call millions of years of death and suffering “very good.”
On the other hand, if the fossil record is the product of a catastrophic global
Flood in which vast numbers of organisms were suddenly buried in chemical-rich
water and sediment, the need to postulate millions of years of history goes
away. God’s account of a perfect world ruined by sin and destroyed by a watery
judgment (Genesis 6–9) is consistent with the fossil evidence in the world.
God’s promise of future restoration, “the restitution of all things” (Acts
3:21), would be nonsensical if evolution really happened. Only an original
creation free from death makes God’s promise of restoration logical. A perfect
creation cannot be the promised future restoration if no perfect creation
existed in the past..." Full text:
Does This Really Matter?
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "[Y]our model is not accepted as science."
Creationists cannot be scientists?
See:
Can an Intellectual Believe in God?
How to Know the Bible is the Word of God
Evolution vs. Creation
Beware lest anyone [5] cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit,
according to ithe tradition of men, according to the [j]basic principles of
the world, and not according to Christ
5 Lit. plunder you or take you captive.
i Gal. 1:14
j Gal. 4:3, 9, 10; Col. 2:20
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Col 2:8
Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "[N]o. [B]ut I do hate liberals as a group because they kill babies..."
We are to love our enemies (Lk 6:27). Are you willing to tell them the truth? Ro 1:16, Pr 27:5.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Tom From Mayberry"
Noguru from Sodom (Deut. 32:32).
