SovereignMercy
Member
I'm more concerned about theological evolutionists who believe spiritually dead people can give themselves life.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
- Status
...and those who do not understand the biblical scope of spiritual death as they equate it to being a spiritual corpse.
> If you do not have a literal creation account, you do not have a literal fall of man account. That does affect the salvation issue.
This was not a problem for the first 4000 years of human history and still is not a problem for the people who wrote the scriptures we hijacked and rewrote. It is only a problem for us.
This was not a problem for the first 4000 years of human history and still is not a problem for the people who wrote the scriptures we hijacked and rewrote. It is only a problem for us.
Good luck with that. :thumbs:
Are you denying Moses' effectively sole authorship of the Pentateuch?
SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
Bill,
I don't lurk around in here all to often but when I do I hear some of the most absurd posts from you. I may have missed your opening comments when you joined or later comments explaining your beliefs and I'm sorry for that, but would you please enlighten me as to what you place your faith in? What is your worldview I guess, for I'll suspect it isn't in agreement with the majority of posters on the BB. Thanks if you will.
Oops just saw the link posted elsewhere... God bless.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/08/30/bill-nye-crusade-for-your-kids
How exactly is that true? Humanity is fallen regardless of whether Genesis is taken as literal or not.
As an epic story, the point is made that humanity willfully sinned, making the choice to ignore God. Since then, humanity has followed in the same footsteps, ignoring God and sinning suffering the consequences along the way.
Paul (among others) makes the point that we are sinners in need of a Savior and that Savior is Jesus. Is it really necessary to know where sin came (which by the way Genesis even if taken literally doesn't explain) from in order to understand that I am a sinner and in desperate need of a Savior?
For me that is a question that will only be answered on the other side Glory. There are many good, God fearing, loving people who don't agree on this topic. Moses as sole author, Moses as editor and the JEPD theory are a few that have all been found to have some merit when discussing who wrote what.
For me it isn't as important to know who wrote it as it is know who inspired it.
Is it a test of fellowship for you to agree that Moses is the sole author of Genesis?
However, Jesus spoke as if Genesis were true and that Adam were a real person. The Scriptures clearly speak of Adam as a real person and the reason that we needed a Savior. If we deny that, then we deny the Scriptures - and Jesus Himself.
Why genetics (evolution) is useful to Bible study . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...a02012-f2b4-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
"Scientists have produced a digital image of a genome tens of thousands of years old with the resolution of a typical living person’s, enabling them to describe the life and history of the ancient humans in great detail, they reported in Thursday’s issue of Science magazine. . .
“There is no difference in what we can learn genetically about a person that lived 50,000 years ago and from a person today,” Paabo said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. . .
"Using the DNA alone, the scientists reconstructed the appearance of the Siberian girl: She had brown eyes and dark hair and skin. Also from genetic information, the scientists pieced together the girl’s pedigree and compared it with modern humans’ and Neanderthals’. The Denisovans contributed genetic material only to present Australian Aborigines and some people in Melanesia, whereas Neanderthals left their mark on everyone outside Africa, Paabo said.
"The scientists analyzed the differences between the DNA of the Denisovan and that of modern humans around the world, allowing them to come up with an estimate of the specimen’s age. Based on the mutation rate in modern humans, the team approximated the age of the Siberian girl at about 80,000 years. That conflicts with archeological data that assign the geological layer of the fossil to an age of 30,000 to 50,000 years. Carbon dating, a standard procedure to determine the age of fossils, would provide a more definitive answer, but the specimen is too small for that.
“It is amazing that we can sequence the whole genome, but there is too little carbon to date it,” Paabo said.
"The scientists estimated that the Denisovans split from modern humans between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago, a broad range attributed to uncertainties about the underlying mutation rates.
"The researchers also inferred the population sizes of the ancient Denisovans based on the differences between genes from the father and the mother in the Siberian girl’s DNA. Because the genes are very similar to each other, the scientists estimated the genetic diversity and therefore the population size to have been low, although the Denisovans have occupied large parts of Asia.
"Paabo shied away from calling the Denisovans a separate species, because they interbred with the ancestors of modern humans. “I wouldn’t call Neanderthals a different species from humans, either. I stay away from that debate,” he added.
"The scientists speculated that a single population moving out of Africa gave rise to the Denisovans and Neanderthals. The new findings support the notion that the ancestors of modern humans mixed with groups of ancient humans, instead of quickly replacing them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...a02012-f2b4-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
"Scientists have produced a digital image of a genome tens of thousands of years old with the resolution of a typical living person’s, enabling them to describe the life and history of the ancient humans in great detail, they reported in Thursday’s issue of Science magazine. . .
“There is no difference in what we can learn genetically about a person that lived 50,000 years ago and from a person today,” Paabo said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. . .
"Using the DNA alone, the scientists reconstructed the appearance of the Siberian girl: She had brown eyes and dark hair and skin. Also from genetic information, the scientists pieced together the girl’s pedigree and compared it with modern humans’ and Neanderthals’. The Denisovans contributed genetic material only to present Australian Aborigines and some people in Melanesia, whereas Neanderthals left their mark on everyone outside Africa, Paabo said.
"The scientists analyzed the differences between the DNA of the Denisovan and that of modern humans around the world, allowing them to come up with an estimate of the specimen’s age. Based on the mutation rate in modern humans, the team approximated the age of the Siberian girl at about 80,000 years. That conflicts with archeological data that assign the geological layer of the fossil to an age of 30,000 to 50,000 years. Carbon dating, a standard procedure to determine the age of fossils, would provide a more definitive answer, but the specimen is too small for that.
“It is amazing that we can sequence the whole genome, but there is too little carbon to date it,” Paabo said.
"The scientists estimated that the Denisovans split from modern humans between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago, a broad range attributed to uncertainties about the underlying mutation rates.
"The researchers also inferred the population sizes of the ancient Denisovans based on the differences between genes from the father and the mother in the Siberian girl’s DNA. Because the genes are very similar to each other, the scientists estimated the genetic diversity and therefore the population size to have been low, although the Denisovans have occupied large parts of Asia.
"Paabo shied away from calling the Denisovans a separate species, because they interbred with the ancestors of modern humans. “I wouldn’t call Neanderthals a different species from humans, either. I stay away from that debate,” he added.
"The scientists speculated that a single population moving out of Africa gave rise to the Denisovans and Neanderthals. The new findings support the notion that the ancestors of modern humans mixed with groups of ancient humans, instead of quickly replacing them."
Tom Butler
New Member
I've always wondered how the primordial slime survived long enough out of its environs to evolve.
How did the fish survive out of water long enough to develop legs?
When did pre-historic birds develop brains that could reason?
Why do we not find the transitional fossils that would get us from birds to humans?
Just askin'.
How did the fish survive out of water long enough to develop legs?
When did pre-historic birds develop brains that could reason?
Why do we not find the transitional fossils that would get us from birds to humans?
Just askin'.
As this thread is on its fourth page, I am closing it.
- Status