Miller may have backed off because the video linked was about 10 years ago and since then DNA experts have proven that the relationships between ape and human DNA is less than seventy percent. This is another case of American scientific bias that called parts of DNA that was not identified as junk DNA. When experts identified this DNA, it was found to have a purpose and not "junk" and it was found there was no correlation. I think that it is called homology when different kinds share some systems, such as eyes, ears, and nose--if those are valid examples.
Kenneth Miller: Respected Christian Champion of Evolution
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Deadworm, Jul 7, 2018.
Page 5 of 8
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thanks! -
-
"I'm going to chasten you with peace." :Roflmao
So if you see yourself as a vessel unto dishonor poured out to chasten God's children, you should choose a frog. People tend to welcome frogs in their garden ponds at least. Flies are for dog poop. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I believe you are confusing evolution with the formation of the universe (the Big Bang?) and the material realm.
Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Evolution requires pre-existing matter and the conditions appropriate for life to grow and develop. It is not a theory of how the heavens and the earth were formed.
No wonder your response to what I wrote previously made no sense to me.
What is interesting is that you and others always jump to the idea that everyone is on the end of losing their belief in scripture and in God Himself -- that if there is a bit of ambiguity or mystery, then one's faith will come crashing down like a house of cards.
I say to you and everyone else, if scripture is true and God is real, there is no danger in asking questions regarding our interpretations of scripture because we know we will find truth. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As you know, there are more geologists, astronomers, biologists, etc. who are not six-day creationists. I could easily make the same false accusation that you dismiss the majority opinion of the scientific field and insinuate that you are too close-minded to fairly consider their arguments. But I have no basis for that accusation and it would simply be a personal attack in the same fashion as you are waging on me. So let's set aside rhetorical swaggering and talk to each other like honorable men.
A child, when confronted with strong evidence that seems contradictory to their understanding of scripture, knows that they have to either change the way they understand scripture or re-evaluate the evidence. Only foolish children refuse to change their thinking.
- God is the Creator of all things, including humankind
- God created humankind in His Own image so that human beings could reflect the character of God and reign over creation using God's authority and power
- Women are equal to men for the woman has come from the side of the man
- God has declared His creation good.
And you have made a great point that it was not written for modern scientists. That's why we shouldn't impose science or scientism onto the Genesis narratives. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
- Enuma Elish
- Gilgamesh
- Atrahasis
- The Assur Bilingual Creation Story
I could go on, but I suspect you really aren't interested. You are simply challenging me.
The big point is that the Genesis creation narratives, as well as much of the content going up to Genesis 11, is a repudiation of the pagan myths that were undoubtably quite familiar to the first readers/hearers of Genesis. Genesis 1-11 demonstrates that the God revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses is the One True God. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
So Evolution, not a product of Jews or Christians but of materialists or naturalists contradicts Scripture on several points. So you say that you believe Genesis 1:1 and use that as proof that we didn't come from Mars, as Bill Nye the Science Guy says is a possibility (and Bill Nye the Science Guy believes in evolution), so the problem is debate within your camp. From my point of view, you believe science when it states that live evolved but otherwise you accept Genesis 1:1.
It is as Jesus said:
John 5:46-47 (KJV) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? -
-
-
God created all things after their own kind, so why bring evolution into the mix at all?
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I agreed with you that "there is no good scientific data available to support atheistic evolution, since atheism has no means to account for the necessary primordial elements and material conditions required for evolution to occur." In other words, if an atheist claims that there is no god on the basis of evolution, they are not taking into account the source of all of the material required for atheism... they are starting way too late along the timeline.
The existence of the universe points to the physical coming out of the spiritual, which points to a Designer/Creator existing in a plane of reality other than material/physical. Note, that does not prohibit the Designer/Creator from also inhabiting the material/physical realm.
In response to that, you threw out Bill Nye's idea that life could have come from Mars. That totally misses the point I was making. (Please note, Bill Nye is an engineer by training and an entertainer by profession.)
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
What evidence of a species change exists?
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Evolution has always been the theory of atheists from Hinduism to the Greeks to the Enlightenment to Darwin--it has been an attempt to explain creation without God and has been the province of naturalists or materialists so I don't know what you are talking about on that point. If you believe in evolution, you contradict Genesis and do not believe what Moses wrote. It is that simple. -
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If you want to know more about this issue (as I have written, repeatedly), Adam and the Genome is a great place to start. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Creationists believe a variety of things about the age of the earth and the universe, and date the formation of the earth from only 6,000 years or so, all the way to billions of years.
Remember, theistic evolutions are creationists too. They believe that God created all things -- that's our cosmology. To pretend otherwise is denying reality.
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
How do you prove that God created the earth? If you are going to quote Scripture as proof, then you have to explain why you don't believe Scripture in other places about Creation but believe Darwin, or more exactly, why should people believe you?
If you look back over your posts you will read that you said that life did not come from Mars for obvious reasons. The reason that you can't disprove Bill Nye on Mars is that you do not think that Genesis is literal. And because you do not think that Genesis is literal, you reject Young Earth Creationism.
Page 5 of 8