Posted on 06/10/2008 12:07:34 PM PDT by mnehring
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
That is simply not true. It is a well-established fact that the 39 books of the OT Canon was well-established by Jesus’ time as that which we possess today. Then He promised that the Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, which resulted in the 27 books of the NT.
This line of argument deliberately ignores the relativistic dilation of time, in a universe created with Earth as its purpose, and at its center. This has all been presented here numerous times. The appearance of great age in the universe is, from Earth, an illusion. I don't call it a trick, because it isn't. Time itself is a feature of a 'temporary' cosmos. It will end, but we will not.
Dangerous heresy, my FRiend.
1. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been studying and using Hebrew for over 30 years. Poetry has a very distinct style. Genesis 1— is the style of prose; not poetry.
2. Moses pens God’s own commentary on the days of creation in Exodus 20:9-11 —
“Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
They are to work 6 normal days, and then rest, because Yahweh made the universe in 6 normal days, and then rested on the seventh. Not work for 6 billion years, then rest for one.
3. Jesus “answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).
4. Paul treats Adam and the Fall as equally historical to Jesus and the Cross and Resurrection (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 45).
There you go.
All worth exploring and discussing.
You misunderstand my use of the word. An argument is something that you present during a discussion.
Gotcha, you know how most ‘arguments’ go on FR. :-> They certainly aren’t discussions.
The 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament were included in the Rabbinic and Sadduccee Canons, the two leading Canons of the time. However, each Canon also included extra books.
So is studying only a subset of the actual Canon of the time considered "holy"? For it is pretty easy to prove otherwise; the book of Jude includes references to the Book of Enoch, and in fact the Book of Wisdom (included in the Catholic and Orthodox Canons) is referenced in the New Testament Books of Acts, Romans, James, and Corinthians.
If in fact the Old Testament Canon as used by the Apostles and authors of the New Testament did NOT include Enoch and Wisdom, why are there references?
Really? So what translation of the Bible do you use? For that must be the exact, infallible Words of God, no? And all other translations MUST be a corruption of the Word of God, since they are not exact.
No, heresy is ascribing to mortal instruments - in this case, words - the full reverence and honor to be reserved for God.
No other gods before Me. Idol worship. Ten Commandments, remember. Be careful to not make the Bible a god before God, or an idol to be worshipped.
There are also references to pagan writers in Acts 17, which means nothing in terms of canonicity. It takes more than a mere reference to indicate attribution of canonical authority. There is no “it is written” or “Scripture says” or “God said” citation of these books.
By contrast there are allusions to the actual canon as Scripture; plus Jesus’ allusion to the blood of Abel and of Zechariah in Matthew 23:35 reflects the shape of the Hebrew canon as we have it today.
Sounds cool.......You don't happen to have a link to a site where I can buy your course for $29.99 and get triple my money back if I continue to look foolish?
Apparently not. From the article:
"But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate...
"Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species...
"'It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting,' says Lenski."
So yes, this would be an example of Macroevolution.p>
Nope. Just a new species of bacteria.
See my last post above.
According to the article, the mutants are a new species:
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
That makes it Macroevolution.
Deniers of evolution as a mechanism that is necessary and sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth have insisted that such a confluence of events could never lead to anything useful like the ability to metabolize citric acid.
Here they have been shown to be wrong once again. Who can say they are surprised?
People have such a hard time giving up the dimension of linear time. "A fool says in his heart, "there is no God"". The Pharisees saw the miracles Jesus did and still didn't believe. We are not responsible for our brothers and sisters salvation. We can only witness to what Christ has done in our own life. Beyond that, it's between them and God. These Creation vs. Evolution debates are tiring. God bless.
I have to watch to whom I voice this opinion, but the “6 day Creationists” might as well be claiming that the earth is the center of the universe and is flat. It makes faithful people look silly.
The Heliocentric model did NOT affect faith in the least, at least in the long run. Neither will acknowledging the time frames that we know to be from the wonderful recording system that the Creator placed here on the earth.
There is no reason that a Good and consistant Creator would create the earth in 144 hours and leave a record stating otherwise to be discovered by His best creation whom He’d bestowed with reasoning ability.
I really don’t even have a problem with “change over time” evolution, as long as the leftists/atheists don’t try to “de-faith” children with their own conclusions while teaching it.
That's fascinating. Thanks for pointing it out! I wonder how the pinheads at the Disco Institute are reacting.
Much like anything they claim to try to sound reasonable to anybody who knows Science is quickly forgotten about while talking to the credulous Creationist cretins who might be turned off by the fact that the Discovery Institute claims to accept common descent and the age of the Earth.
Much as Behe talks about how he accepts the evidence for common descent but then fails to mention the ERV data that supports it with thousands of data points.
IGNORE IGNORE DENY IGNORE; and when that doesn't work LIE LIE LIE.
Intraspecies variability is not evolution per se.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.