Do I sense the challenge of a duel here?

What I'm absolutely sure about is that those who claim that evolution has science to support it, and that it is a fact and not a theory, never seem to come up with irrefutable proof.

I've never claimed that ID is a "scientific fact", for creation has never, and will never be possible to recreate in a laboratory. Therefore - science has no place in ID - nor evolution. When science shows us a match in DNA with a chimp and a human, then maybe we can move outside the realm of theory. But to say there are "similarities", and offer that as evidence of proof - then I have to quote Donald Fagan on that one: "Only a fool would say that".

That sounded a bit snippy. Eljay is the only one that actually tries to debate this topic with me. You have "no interest" in it or so you have told me several times, Sam. Yeah, its only the origin of humans, no big deal.

Eljay said:





Well let's see. You never did get back to me on the whole Neanderthal thing. You left it at "I need to research this some more."

For one thing Eljay, I have NEVER made the claim that the actual source of human life (or any other biological organism for that matter) is not somehow related to a "creative source" or ID. No one has any way of knowing that or proving it's reliability or fallibility beyond a shadow of all doubt. Dont be silly.

What you have heard me express on these forums with absolute certainty is that Evolutionary Biology is assuredly the most plausible of any theory in existence today. This is simply irrefutable fact. There is much more credible evidence to support the validity of its claims, including the existence of tangible physical documentation, than any other theory espoused, either newer or older than it.

As Abra pointed out, the theory of evolution is not at odds with most spirituality unless you choose to create that controversy on your own which we all know you are quite capable of.

No, what I have said is that I dont buy into the idea that your particular choice of god designed anything. So please dont twist and spin my words because far be it from me to not call you on it.



What the? What do you mean a match in genetic profile? Chimpanzee is a separate species in the family of primate, our closest relative here on Earth because our early hominid relatives diverged from their line a little under 6 million years ago. So you cant be ridiculous about this and make irrational requests.That simply wont do.

I would have to agree with your quote, "only a fool would say that." It certainly is applicable here.

I await your further detailed explanation instead of irrational garble. Better luck next time.

The Biblical Wisdom Series
Pamphlet #1003
by John Rhine
When Did Dinosaurs Live on Earth?
Is There a Conflict Between Science and the Bible?
Conflict? Is there a conflict between the Biblical account of creation and scientific discoveries about the age of the earth? When did dinosaurs roam the earth?


Let's explore what the Bible tells us. We'll start with the six days of God's divine activity described in Genesis.
Day 6 starts in Gen. 1:24 with the words "And God said"
Day 5 starts in Gen. 1:20 with the words "And God said"
Day 4 starts in Gen. 1:14 with the words "And God said"
Day 3 starts in Gen. 1:9 with the words "And God said"
Day 2 starts in Gen. 1:6 with the words "And God said"
Day 1 starts in Gen. 1:3 with the words "And God said"

What about the first two verses in Genesis? What are they telling us? What happened during the time that passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, prior to God starting these six days of activity? We must look to other places in the Bible for these answers. We will explore the following verses, in the King James Version. Gen. 1:1-2, Gen. 1:28, Gen. 8:3 - 9:2, Jer. 4:23-26, 2 Peter 3:5-8, Isaiah 14:12-14, Isaiah 45:18, Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Psalms 136:6-7.
The beginning
Let's first examine Gen. 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. What do we know about this? Isaiah 45:18 tells us he made the earth to be inhabited and not in vain (Heb., tohu, meaning empty) and 2 Peter 3:5 tells us the earth was standing out of the water.
Sometime Later
Gen. 1:2 says the earth was (Heb., hayah, meaning became) without form and void (Heb., tohu va bola, meaning, waste and empty) and darkness was (became) upon the face of the deep (flooded). 2 Peter 3:6 says the earth was (became) overflowed with water and perished.
Note: Peter is not talking about Noah's flood because all the world did not perish in Noah's flood.

Jeremiah vision
If we look at Jeremiah's vision of the earth (Jer. 4:23-26) it was without form and void; and had no light and the mountains trembled and the hills moved. And there were no men and all the birds were gone. He said the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities were broken down because of the Lord's anger. He must have seen the earth as it is described in Gen. 1:2 and as Peter described it in 2 Peter 3:6 because the earth has never been empty and waste and dark since the six days of God's activity as described in Gen. 1:3 to 2:25. The only time the sun and stars were not allowed to give light was the period before the six days. They have been giving light ever since. There never has been a time or will be a time when there were no men on earth since then. Yet Jeremiah said all the cities were gone.
How can this be?
What was happening on earth between (Gen. 1:1), Isaiah's vision of the inhabited earth or (2 Peter 3:5 Peter's description of the earth standing out of the water and; (Gen. 1:2) Jeremiah's vision of the flooded, empty and void earth or (2 Peter 3:6) Peter's overflowed earth?

Look to the Angels for the answer.
What about Lucifer, the fallen angel (Satan). Isaiah 14: 12-14 tells us that Lucifer fell from heaven, was cut down to the ground (earth) which weakened the nations! Why? Because he wanted to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the heights of the clouds and be the most High. Read Ezekiel 28:11-19.
When did this happen? It must have been before the six days of God's activity because he was already a fallen angel in the garden of Eden.
Lucifer must have had a kingdom here on earth and it must have been between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. Were there men in his kingdom? He weakened the nations Isaiah 14:12. At no place in the Bible does God refer to nations except to nations made up of men.
Jeremiah, in Jer. 4:25, saw no men when he saw the earth as it was in Gen. 1:2. In verse 26 he says all the cities were broken down by the fierce anger of the Lord.
Ezekiel saw Lucifer cast to the ground before Kings, in Ezek. 28:17, and all that know him among the people shall be astonished, in verse 19.
When Peter described the overflowed earth where the world perished he was describing Lucifer's Flood between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.

Still not convinced!
If you are still not convinced that men lived on earth before Adam's time look at the following two verses. Gen. 9:1 after Noah's flood, God tells Noah and his sons to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. In Gen. 1:28 God tells Adam to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. If people didn't live on earth between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 how could Adam replenish? The earth most certainly was plenished with men before the six days.
How long ago did all this happen?
How long ago did God create the perfect, inhabited earth of Gen. 1:1? It could have been hundreds of billions of years ago!
How long did Lucifer have a kingdom here on earth, where he ruled over nations, before he tried to move his throne to heaven and be the most high?
How long did God put up with sin before he got angry enough to completely destroy the nations of the dateless past? It could have been hundreds of millions of years.
How long was the earth void and flooded as in Gen. 1:2? It could have been hundreds of millions of years. Did these first men live on earth at the same time as the dinosaurs?


Question: John, why do we find no man's bones from this period of the dinosaurs?
Answer: Because we were spirit beings without flesh and bone bodies in those days. It was only after our brother Lucifer's fall that God felt the need to teach all of us about life and death and the end result from what is Holy viruses what is profane.

The Dateless Past
God didn't choose to tell us very much about this long period of the earth's history in the Bible. Just enough to know there is no conflict between Biblical accounts of the earth's age and scientific discoveries. If God did not allow the sun to shine on the earth for a period of time from Gen. 1:2 till Gen. 1:3 (day 1), guess what, the Ice Age! Scientists have discovered the frozen carcasses of animals at the Arctic Circle that are millions of years old. In their stomachs they found undigested tropical plants. How can this be? Very simple, when God cursed the earth after Lucifer's fall and flood he cut off the light and warmth of the sun and there was an instant ice age and everything perished.
When God turned the sun's light back unto the earth, starting Gen. 1:3 (day 1) the ice began to melt and starting Gen. 1:6 (day 2) some evaporated to form clouds. Starting Gen. 1:9 (day 3) dry land appears again. Starting Gen. 1:14 (day 4) the sun is again able to shine on dry land. Starting Gen.1:20 (day 5) he created fish and brought forth birds. Starting Gen. 1:24 (day 6) he created man for the second time; only this time in flesh and blood bodies just like living beasts He also brought forth.


Note: I did not say that on day six God created Adam and Eve, as per "Garden of Eden" Adam and Eve; No, I said He created man, as per sixth day man. The Adam and Eve you're thinking of weren't created until the eighth day. See pamphlet #7001.

No Conflict
So you see, if you search the scriptures and as the Apostle Paul tells us in 2 Tim. 2:15 "rightly dividing the word of truth", you find that there is no conflict between scientific discoveries about the age of the earth or its pre- historic inhabitants and what God has revealed to us in the Bible. Once scientists discover how old the earth really is we'll also know more about what the earth was like between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. We'll also know what the people who lived on earth at that time were like. All we now know is that we were not in these flesh bodies then.

Let's compare Lucifer's Flood
to Noah's Flood
Gen. 1:1-12 & 20-23, Gen. 6:1-13, Gen. 8:1-14, Isa. 14:12-14, Ezek. 28:11-17, Jer. 4:23-26, Ps. 104:7, Luke 10:18, and 2 Peter 3:6
After Lucifer's Flood After Noah's Flood
Earth made waste Not made waste
Earth made empty Not made empty
Earth made totally dark Not made dark
All vegetation destroyed Vegetation not destroyed
God rebuked the waters Waters gradually receded
they hastened away away over a period of months
All fish destroyed Fish were not destroyed
No foul were left Foul did not disappear
No animals left Animals were saved
No men left on earth Men were saved (8 day eighth men and probably allot of sixth day men)
No social system left Social system was preserved
Caused by fall of Satan Caused by fall of man
Became necessary to re-create All things preserved
Published by:
Rhine Publishing Co
199 Joseph Drive
Middletown, PA 17057




all of our ancient fossil remains, myths and mythologies, dinosaurs and such belong to the earth that then was, before the genesis creation then destroyed because of satan, then mankind male and female made on the sixth day, then adam and eve formed after the seventh, the adamic blood line.
The earth is very old, sixth day mankind creation and adam of the garden came later.

Im not certain thats even topic related?

I thought the topic was hitting on you.

Interesting...I've been following your thread here & you seem to have the Intellectual/Faithful discussion under control. Like a breath of FRESH AIR! Keep up the good work sister.

I know it takes more guts to live by faith than by sight because without faith it truly is impossible to please God. There is plenty of proof of that on these boards.

Uh...people kill their children every day. Ever heard of abortion?

Please! Stop with the twisted logic here. Left up to their own devices, People kill themselves ...and other people. Not God.

Its seems pretty easy for people to step in and back their own team but I have yet to see any thoughtful rebuttal? Anyone?

Scientific origin of humans
What does science have that verifies its position that humans are the result of evolution? Fully supported and demonstrated underlying principles, for one! The following is the “in a nutshell” version.

a. Science has shown that DNA stores genetic information in the form of its base sequences.

b. Science has shown that it is an organism’s genotype (genetic makeup) that determines its phenotype (outward appearance and biochemical properties).

c. Science has shown that changes made to DNA base sequences can result in altered phenotypes.

d. Science has shown that mutations – changes in the DNA – occur spontaneously, changing the information stored and therefore the phenotype of the organism.

e. Science has shown that mutations occurring in gametes (sex cells) can be passed on to offspring.

Therefore, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for how organisms come to have the morphology and biochemical properties they do (development, which is controlled by genetics), as well as how their morphology/biochemical properties can change over time: completely naturally.

Logic and experimentation have shown the next key factor: natural selection. Individuals in a population, though very similar to one another, differ. Because of these various individual differences, some members of a population will be more fit than others. That is, in the particular environment the population finds itself in, some individuals, based on their physical/biochemical traits, will have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, thus having a better chance of passing on their genes to the next generation. This differential passing on of genetic information into future generations (with “fitter genes” being more likely to be passed on than less “fit” ones) leads to changes in the genetic makeup of the population over time. And as one might expect, as the genetic makeup changes, so too does the morphology and/or biochemical properties of its members. Thus, there is a fully supported scientific explanation for how populations evolve.

In addition to the straightforward extension of the above that indicates speciation would occur in the wild, science also has documented cases of such: both for plants (for example, by means of allopolyploidy) and for animals (for example, by allopatric speciation). Note that acording to most biologists, speciation is a macroevolutionary event: thus, Creationists cannot legitimately claim that only microevolution is well supported by scientific theory and observations. So we see that science has a fully supported theoretical model for speciation, which has been confirmed by observations and lab experiments.

Evolution at and below the species level stands on firm, well supported, scientific ground, and has in fact been confirmed by observations. The rest is often times said, by Creationists, to be nothing more than extrapolation: that evolutionists simply assume that because microevolution and speciation have been observed in the short amount of time that biologists have been examining organisms, that additional time would produce larger scale evolution. The following is one example of an anti-evolutionist questioning the validity of this extrapolation.



”Actual scientific evidence, both experimental and paleontological, supports only limited variation within fixed boundaries, or what is called microevolution. Macroevolution – the unlimited capacity of organisms to transform beyond all boundaries – is an extrapolation from microevolution. As with all extrapolations it is legitimate to question whether this extrapolation is
warranted.”
(Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William A. Dembski,
InterVarsity Press, 1999, p250)



For the current discussion, the extrapolation past confirmed evolutionary processes would be the origin of humans from an ancestor we shared with chimps. But is this just extrapolation? No! Multiple scientific evidences support the position that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Here’s a listing of many of them.

1) The 96% - 99% identity between the human and chimp genomes indicates both common ancestry and our being more closely related to chimps (including bonobos) than to any other extant species

2) The sharing of multiple pseudogenes, and their specific disabling mutations, by both chimps and humans: this bolsters the case of genetic relatedness by means of common descent and crushes the "common design" counterargument.

3) The head-to-head fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes (most similar to those of chimpanzees) to form one of our human chromosomes.

4) The individual anatomical differences between humans and chimps being so minor: mostly differences in the mere size, shape, or amount of shared structures (brain size, limb length, jaw shape, curvature of spine, amount of hair, etc.). No major biological novelty separates the two species (and neoteny alone can explain several of the differences).

5) The nearly identical brain structure for chimps and humans, including several shared asymmetries.

6) The fact that chimps have several "humanlike" mental qualities, such as high intelligence, self-recognition, empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity, peacemaking, a sense of fairness – which is correlated with the strength of the social bond – and a wide range of other emotions we humans have, such as joy, sadness, and compassion.

7) The numerous hominid fossils that help document our evolutionary past.

Together, all of these evidences – which come from multiple, independent, objective sources, and which are verifiable, at least in principle, by anyone – form a very convincing argument in support of our evolutionary origin. And, they show that the evolutionary position that humans evolved from a common ancestor we share with chimps is not mere extrapolation from the confirmed processes of microevolution and speciation. Evolutionists have both the logical extrapolation and the multiple supporting evidences.

right,

and without faith Jim Jones would have never been able to get those people to kill themselves.
Thats what faith gets you.

And Jim Baker could have never have swindled tens of thousands out of their life savings with his fraudulent PTL (Praise the Lord) club.

DUH! No...that's what cultlike thinking gets you. People should be able to discern better to test all things before going whole hog. That's how those people got themselves killed.

A person has to be an idiot to get themselves involved in a cult. Maybe some should know what that means before they attribute everything to it. Unlike you, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No one owns me.

Jim Jones was an atheist, who infiltrated the Pentacostal church because he wanted to destroy Christianity.

Im still not seeing the relevance that corrupt Christian leaders has to this topic? Who started all this anyway? Irritating. Its not my thread nor my call to make so I will leave you guys to it. Good day.

Krim, when i say it's no big deal i mean this - it does not matter to me whether we were created by some entity or whether we arose out of the slime, it [to me] has no bearing on where we are now or where we go from here.all i know is I'm alive and i did not create myself, if that's true then why am i here and who am i? what the purpose, the point? is life just a matter of being born, living, and dieing? if so then why have all these emotions, thoughts, inclinations, desires to know what lays beyond this life? it adds nothing to my search for truth of why I'm here. or why anything is here - if your right then its a useless life with nothing to look forward to - if the creationist are right its no better with some eternity with some entity who demands worship 24/7 ad infinitum. if i or JB or others are by chance right we go on in a spirituality that we have some control of for eternity, that to me is the better choice and more reasonable than the others. plus i don't believe that either the book god or evolution will ever be proven beyond every one's doubts it will remain a sticking point at east in my life time and most likely yours also, so what diff does it really make which you care to side with? what over-all personal good does it do each person in there present life? contentment of knowing this? i don't see any contentment with either for me. sorry.

and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on, on and on and on and on and onynnnnn. sheesh!

MM, you may not mean to sound like your above it all and that were all beneath it - but unfortunately thats the way your coming across - at least to me, i understand your stance here- but if you dont have anything constructive to add past what you have - then your just being a troll - and i dont think you mean to do that do you??

Well you have mentioned to me that you "have no interest in the topic because you do not fully understand the debate." That was my understanding and what has been mentioned in the past via different conversations that revolved around the subject matter. One has to beg the question, if you "do not care" why do you consistently post on these threads every time they pop up which is often?



What the? What makes you think that exactly? That is probably the most ridiculous statement I have heard expressed on this forum. Thats saying a lot. So you perceive that if the Theory of Evolution is indeed valid (which it essentially is) that now ALL human life is worthless and means nothing? Thats preposterous. The science behind Evolutionary Biology has NOTHING, I repeat nothing to do with where we might be headed postmortem but it has EVERYTHING to do with where we came as a distinct species.

Im sorry that you feel that the study of Paleontology is somehow robbing you of your spiritual autonomy. I myself believe that reincarnation is a definite possibility. Do I now not have that right since I adhere to a scientifically based conceptual model of human development? I must have missed that memo. For shame. I find your divisiveness quite unnecessary. You do not need to compartmentalize beliefs to the exclusion of all others.

your correct my lady i will post no more on this topic or threads concerning the matter of evolution - have an nice day