re: Venial Sin my butt!

A few of the points that have led me away from classic Darwinism are:
Although we observe DNA and Genetic code that are the same or similar from species to species, these are arranged in ways that make cross species fertilization impossible (# of chromosomes, order of DNA, order of chromosomes, location of genes on chromosomes, etc. Also, mutations are rare and almost always unsuccessful. These suggest (as do many other factors) that intervention was taken at key points in the earth's history to re-arrange genetics with purpose of creating new varieties of species. For example, the record shows sudden changes in the number and types of species, as opposed to gradual changes.

Secondly (but not exclusively) experiments designed to simulate life forms emerging from the primordial goo were either unsuccessful or unrepeatable (proven wrong). Yet many of these failed experiments remain in textbooks and are being taught by people who don't know any better or refuse to believe they are wrong and are still waiting for the magic bullet experiment proving spontaneous life from the combination of ancient soup and radiation. You can read more from impressive list of highly accomplished and credentialed scientists at LINK /

quote:

---

None of these people are doubting microevolution (small scale changes in a population of organisms)

---

Except the creationists.

Do you accept “microevolution”? I seem to remember you saying that you did. That’s all evolution is. Very small changes in population over time - some due to genetic drift and some due to natural selection. Over thousands and millions of years many tiny changes sum to a large chance when comparing the ancestral population.

quote:

---

The statement of dissent only concerns the view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.

---

Empirical evidence shows your statement to be false. If you are emphasizing “unguided”, obviously there is no evidence that a designer is acting upon nature in this way. If you presuppose that evolution is guided by Adonai, then you also have to accept that he makes millions of mistakes - 99% of all species ever to exist are extinct.

quote:

---

Rather that the Darwinian model of an unguided process of random mutations is not sufficient to account for the complexity of life

---

Therefore, God did it, right?

quote:

---

within the evolutionary time period of 4.5 or so billion years.

---

Don’t tell Foo - his neurons will short circuit.

quote:

---

Let he who has never committed a logical fallacy cast the first stone.

---

quote:

---

And you presuppose that all life on earth must have arisen by some naturalistic, random, unguided process- for which you also have no evidence.

---

I just don’t blame it on God if I have no reason to…

quote:

---

quote:

---

The science is never settled

---

quote:

---

evolution is a fact

---

Both statements cannot be simultaneously true.

---

False. Science is a never ending study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. We are always learning and casting out wrong hypotheses. Some aspects of our knowledge are confirmed as facts as the evidence is overwhelming, such as evolution. The fact of biological evolution doesn’t mean the science is settled. We still don’t know with certainty for instance whether Homo Erectus evolved from Homo Habilis or maybe some yet to be discovered hominem.

quote:

---

How very thorough. So, less than 10% of the signees, from 15 years ago, and you believe that number can be extrapolated to accurately represent the entirety of the current list?

---

Yes

quote:

---

Surely not due to any peer pressure, ridicule, and/or fear of being “Expelled.”

---

So why won’t they delete their names?

quote:

---

Genetic fallacy. But ok. Should an argument be judged on its merits, or by its proponents?

---

Merits, but sometimes finding out the proponent induces a humorous situation.

quote:

---

But truth is not determined by the number of people who agree with each other.

---

Oh I agree, so you can throw your list of scientists away I guess. Truth is based on facts and evidence, not the number of people who agree - 100%!

quote:

---

Have you watched Expelled yet?

---

I haven’t. Maybe next time I cut grass. It’s an hour and 37 minute propaganda film. Give me some time.

I will say though that I agree there is a problem with “canceling” and lack of practical freedom of thought and expression. We should allow alol thoughts, even delusional thoughts, and mockery of it. For example, you can’t work for Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University without signing a contract not to publicly contradict the Bible. During Covid, no one was even allowed to present evidence (that truthfully showed) that Covid was made in the Wuhan lab. Still today, a gainfully employed climate scientist likely cannot speak to the contrary of the artificial consensus of global warming without risking his livelihood.

It’s been a crazy week. My clients have been very demanding lately. 14-16 hour days will wear you down quickly. I’m looking forward to the weekend, so I can catch up.

quote:

---

Dang, the other thread was deleted before I had a chance to respond to you.

---

Yeah. Probably for the best. It was devolving, rapidly, into petty insults and intentional misrepresentation (not from you). There’s no value to be had in those types of discussions- which is precisely why I don’t participate in the RC/Pro debates on anonymous Internet forums.

quote:

---

If you remember what it was about, post it here.

---

Lol. I don’t. It got deleted. It was a lot. And it was (I think) well articulated. Now, it’s just another casualty of the RC/Pro war. Pity.

quote:

---

I remember one part where you said I was well on my way of converting to agnosticism

---

I jest. While you admit that there may be a God (which is agnostic), I don’t actually believe that you have moved a micrometer towards Christian theism. Again- pity.

quote:

---

There is unequivocally a 0.00% likelihood that the gods of the Bible exist in reality.

---

That is a statement of faith; disguised as a fact- as you cannot prove your position beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor can I, which why I readily admit that my position is one of faith. We both dissect the preponderance of evidence (for and against), and each come to different conclusions.

quote:

---

Even though I’ve been to Catholic mass twice this week with my family

---

I’m very happy to hear this. I sincerely hope it continues.

quote:

---

I am an atheist that doesn’t pretend to know how the universe began or even how life began on earth

---

quote:

---

but it damn sure wasn’t God

---

FIFY. Do you not see the logical inconsistency in this statement? “Don’t know,” and “damn sure,” cannot both be true simultaneously. If you don’t know, then you’re not damn sure. If you’re damn sure, then you do know. Which is it?

quote:

---

evolution of species due to natural selection is an irrefutable scientific fact.

---

So was the eternality of the universe- before the Big Bang Theory.
One thing is certain- it’s not just creationists and ID proponents who have problems with neo-Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory is just as lazy as creation theory.

Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

You’re probably thinking- So what. It’s still evolution. Amirite? Yes, it’s still evolution. But not Darwinian evolution. And that’s a step in the right direction.

I’m glad this thread is back. I like some of what Squirrel has to say, but I hope the Holy Spirit can get through to him before it’s too late. Praying for you baw.

quote:

---

Well, I don’t believe you.

---

2, 3, 5, and 8 are about belief without evidence. In this case belief in supernatural phenomena without evidence. That’s what we are talking ‘bout.

quote:

---

You have faith in Darwin, and Dawkins. Your faith is in fallible man- and his fallible conventions.

---

Nope. You are confused, but I can understand why. You reject obvious proof of an evidently true reality that those guys have demonstrated. Because you reject evidently true reality, you think that what they published is false or erroneous. Therefore you see it as me blindly believing their work based on a willingness and a desire to believe them. You are operating on the wrong premise. I don’t have faith in Darwin or Dawkins, and there’s no reason to believe them without evidence, because they have demonstrated the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

quote:

---

You have faith that there is no God (without proof).

---

This is a worn out fallacious assertion among theists. Would you say someone who doesn’t smoke has a nasty addictive habit? No one on either side is fooled by this.

quote:

---

Ummm… no, you can’t. Unless, of course, you were there when it happened? What you can do, is make a mildly convincing argument, based on very limited knowledge, of a vanishingly small timeframe of the existence of things we are struggling to comprehend.

---

This is another really poor argument. As a detective investigating a murder, if you found someone with bloody clothes, (very unique) shoes, and gloves in their vehicle, and the blood matches the DNA of the victim, and the person is in possession of the murder weapon, and if that person was known to be at the scene of the crime during the timeframe of the murder, and if he was the only person at the scene who hadn’t died, and the person had a history of physical violence against the victim, you tellin me you couldn’t put two and two together? You would have let OJ off the hook because you weren’t there to witness the crime?

quote:

---

U mad bro? You seem triggered.

---

Yeah I’m mad. I clicked the link. These kinds of people are like Nikki Haley masquerading as a conservative republican. Unscientific nonsense by morons and devious people. Surely they have some peer reviewed white papers with loads of evidence to support their hypotheses proving those dastardly “neo darwinian faith based evolutionists” wrong. Not just some fallacious claims without evidence.

quote:

---

I'd be curious to get your thoughts on this article it explains the origins of rational thought in human beings, and the connection of the soul. My opinion is that God gave Adam and Eve a soul at the same time evolution brought about rational thought in homo sapiens. I also believe God designed the universe in such a way that human beings would evolve out of it, so that he could give them souls.

There is also an interesting question of original sin, how do we make sense of sin and evolution?

---

I honestly can't see how evolution can be even remotely compatible with the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Any attempt to make the two fit has to necessarily make "science" the standard over and against the Scriptures.

To start, there is no way any person would understand that God created man through natural processes (evolution) rather than through direct intervention in a special way by reading the Scriptures alone. It's only in reading the Scriptures in light of evolutionary thought that evolution can even be inserted into the Biblical paradigm as a square peg into a round hole.

There is the notion that Jesus taught that "from the beginning of creation", God made man male and female (Mark 10:6; Mat. 19:4). The clear implication is that man and woman existed early on in creation, not came about millions or billions of years after creation. So even Jesus spoke about time in creation from a "creationist" frame of reference, not an evolutionary one. Considering Jesus was there in the beginning as the eternal Son of God and second person of the Trinity, I think He would know.

Woman was created from man in the Scriptures in a way that is wholly unlike any of the animals that God created, yet evolutionary theory would assert that man and woman came about from the same natural processes instead of a supernatural action on God's part.

Relatedly, woman was created for Adam precisely because God said that man needed a helper and there wasn't one in the animal kingdom that was suitable (Gen. 2:18-25). According to evolutionary theory, this part of the narrative should be ignored completely, because woman already existed alongside man. Not only was she not created uniquely, but Adam didn't need a "helper" because he already had helpers. Humans had other proto-humans (as well as other humans, evidently) to breed with and live with (we have to remember that evolution doesn't provide clear marks of delineation between species but gradual evolution between them). As a side note, the notion that God would bring all animals to Adam for him to name is utter ridiculousness that can't be reconciled with evolutionary theory in any meaningful sense.

God created man to be herbivores (Gen. 1:29) prior to the fall (prior to sin). God gave them (and all land-based animals) herbs and fruits to eat (not meat), and combined with the statements by Paul about death entering the world through sin (of Adam), it is clear that no animal death existed prior to the fall, yet the linked article (consistent with evolutionary theory) states that proto-humans hunted and killed animals (there was obviously death of all living organisms for millions of years prior to humans in this view). Man, therefore, would have hunted and killed (each other and other animals) prior to being given a special status by God, which runs contrary to Genesis 1:29-30 regarding them only eating fruits and herbs.

Next, it doesn't do to spiritualize the text in Gen. 2:7 by saying Man became a "living being" through relationship. The breath of life is that of life, not relationship. The article has to explain this verse differently because it is clear that humans were "living beings" prior to this breath of life relationship that they assert in the evolutionary framework. The clear language of the text has to be altered to fit the evolutionary worldview.

The next big issue is the issue of the Covenant of Works. God made a covenant with Adam (necessitating an actual Adam) as representative of the entire human race. This covenant promised everlasting, eternal life for Adam if he obeyed God's commands and did not sin. Adam was told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a test, and when he failed that test, he sinned, and plunged all humanity (himself and Eve and all of their future progeny) into guilt before God.

A few points on this: first, Adam was a singular representative for humanity in the Covenant. If "Adam" was just one human of many, then the other humans alive at that time were judged guilty in God's sight due to this one man's sin. As unfair as the concept of Original Sin sounds to people within a biblical paradigm, it sounds even worse in an evolutionary framework if there were other humans alive that were judged guilty when they weren't given a chance by God to obey.

Second, Adam was perfect and sinless before the fall. The reason he was made representative of humanity was precisely because he had the capacity to obey without a fallen/sinful nature. If "Adam" was just one of many humans, there is no reason to assume he was sinless, innocent, and had capacity for perfect obedience to the Covenant, or that if he did, that others would not have also been in the same spiritual innocence, which means that other humans were potentially being judged as spiritually guilty because of "Adam" when they had not sinned. This concept completely wipes out the possibility of original sin, which is a staple of Christian theology from early on in the history of the Church and taught explicitly by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans.

The next related issue is that death came into the world as a punishment for Adam's failure to keep the Covenant of Works (Rom. 5:12-21). The Apostle Paul relates how both physical and spiritual death entered into the world through Adam. This coincides with what I already stated about all land-based animals (and man) only eating fruits and herbs/plants in the beginning. The shedding of blood was always a punishment for sin, and sin didn't occur until Adam sinned. God killed an animal and used its skin to give Adam and Eve clothing to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:21) as a sign that He had forgiven their sins through the shedding of blood. It was a picture of being "clothed with Christ", whose blood covers the sins of those who trust in Him by faith (Heb. 10).

The last thing I will mention is that the Scriptures compare a literal Adam to a literal Christ. Going back to Romans 5, Paul compares the sin of one man being taken away by the righteousness of one man. Christ is the new Adam, and yet if evolutionary theory were true, this "Adam" never existed, especially not in any meaningful way that the Bible describes, so therefore Christ is compared to someone who didn't exist as the Scriptures say. Jesus is our representative in faith as Adam is our representative in sin (Covenant of Grace vs. Covenant of Works). A non-Biblical "Adam" destroys both the comparison with Christ as well as the federal representation of sin/guilt and righteousness between Adam and Jesus. Such a comparison by Paul would be unhelpful if he were factually incorrect in his understanding of creation and Adam in particular.

The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures speak to a literal creation with a literal Adam who committed actual sin that plunged the world into sin and death. Jesus Christ is the new Adam who came to obey the Covenant of Works perfectly where Adam failed and to shed His blood as a sacrifice for sinners. All of creation groans to be restored through the redemption in Christ (Rom. 8:21-23), and therefore creation was impacted by the fall of a real Adam. Evolutionary theory is not compatible with the Bible on this.

For the record, I would like to make this post to highlight the fact that Foo says that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The Holy Bible's book of Genesis is all of the proof that he needs to make this declaration.

No amount of Biology, Geology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Paleology that anybody can cite now, or in the future, will ever shake him from his belief in his declaration.

Given these facts, do you think you can have a reasoned debate with somebody like this?

How do you debate somebody who believes that God will punish you if you believe in Dinosaurs?

quote:

---

For the record, I would like to make this post to highlight the fact that Foo says that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The Holy Bible's book of Genesis is all of the proof that he needs to make this declaration.

---

For the record, I would like to make this post to highlight the fact that you have a problem with me resting upon God's Word as my highest authority. You, who claim the name of Christ, are acting so antagonistic towards His Scriptures that you mock and ridicule me publicly because I stand on the Scriptures. You can disagree with me all you like, but your seemingly low view of the Bible is sickening to me.

quote:

---

No amount of Biology, Geology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Paleology that anybody can cite now, or in the future, will ever shake him from his belief in his declaration.

---

If I reject the Scriptures as God's infallible word, then what else do I have? Man's thoughts and opinions that do not provide life?

I strongly suggest you not only start studying the Bible, but also give philosophy some serious thought, as it might reveal to you exactly what the Bible teaches regarding truth and the state of mankind. You might just find that those who suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness will not come to biblical/truthful conclusions about the reality we live in based on their presuppositions.

Just like you side with atheists against Christians in these discussions, you are siding with materialists against the Scriptures.

If you would like to engage in any of the discussion I've been contributing to other than mocking me for an orthodox, Christian view of biblical creation, then I'd like to discuss truth with you.

quote:

---

Given these facts, do you think you can have a reasoned debate with somebody like this?

---

I expect a response like this from someone who is an open enemy of God, but you claim to be a Christian, so I expect you to reason differently than the world on spiritual matters. You are not engaging with my biblical defense of my beliefs. You are just mocking me for not towing the naturalistic line of conclusions that contradict the Scriptures, expecting me to join with them over God's Word. Do you also deny that Jesus is raised from the dead? No scientist in his right mind will say that Jesus actually rose from the dead, because "science" doesn't accept it.

quote:

---

How do you debate somebody who believes that God will punish you if you believe in Dinosaurs?

---

You are breaking the 9th commandment against me right now by lying about me. I call you to repent.