The Basic Non Evolution of Modern Man

[Kevmo]

Perhaps rather than say I believe in science, we who do
***right there, you acknowledge that you DO...

should say “I believe scientific evidence” when there is enough of it and it is reproducible.
***Then why do I encounter so much vehemence against the historicity of Jesus’s claim that caused men to kill Him? Each time I have logged onto creat threads I have seen this irrational mode coming from the evo crowd. It seems to bother them quite a bit when there is rational evidence presented for the historicity of Christ and the claims He made for Himself. Even his ENEMIES acknowledge such claims, but many evolutionist types here on FR put less credence in that historical evidence than they do about something that happened billions of years ago.

Unfortunately religion has little reproducible evidence, which is why it is not science.
***Then if something isn’t reproducible, it isn’t science. The past is not reproducible.

[wendy1946]

One of the most interesting aspects of evolution is the economy which is explained so well in Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Apparently genes are modified and reused over and over again over the ages. The segmented earthworm body becomes the segmented insect or crustacean body, becomes the fish

As I noted above, that is basically a fairytale; that's the part of it which went down with the fruit fly experiments.

[Notary Sojac]

If you spend much time on FR’s evolution threads, it’s easy to get the impression that the “better informed”, non “Luddite” Christian is about as rare a specimen as the moderate Muslim.

[wendy1946]

The original post here had nothing to do with Christianity; just a rundown of the scientific reasons for viewing evolution as junk science.

I'll say it again, I am not into pushing religion. I'll RECOMMEND Christianity if somebody WANTS a recommendation, but in most cases all you're really talking about is people wondering what to do with themselves after they realize that evolution is unworkable on purely scientific grounds and, for that, i.e. for the large numbers of people who simply need something to replace evoloserism, any religion other than I-slam would do and that includes Voodoo and Rastafari.

Neither Voodoo nor Rastafari requires anybody to believe in infinite sequences of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events as does evolution.

[Kevmo]

One of the main reasons that I am not a Christian is all the Christians who insist that if I reject the concept that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I am rejecting the entire faith.
***You should read the book written by two of our best Freepers, Betty Boop and Alamo Girl.

Amazon.com: Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light ...$19.96 - In stock

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” As Albert Einstein explained this, his own creed: “A religious person is devout in ...
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Science-Down-Timothy.../1430304693

[The Comedian]

If you spend much time on FR’s evolution threads, it’s easy to get the impression that the “better informed”, non “Luddite” Christian is about as rare a specimen as the moderate Muslim.

Yikes.

Hopefully the less strangulation-dogma-inclined believers are just quiet on the subject.

For what it's worth, I think the basic idea behind morphogenic fields is close to the truth. David Bohm's enfolded holomovement model fits too. The tiniest tip of the reality iceberg peaks out of the probability sea as physical life. I think the patterns are far deeper than mere "random" molecular recombination, but they certainly drive it.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[betty boop]

One of the main reasons that I am not a Christian is all the Christians who insist that if I reject the concept that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I am rejecting the entire faith.

Jeepers, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe the universe is "only a few thousand years old." See here for a comment I made on this subject recently.

Thank you so much Kevmo!!!

[wendy1946]

What Sheldrake is saying as I understand it is that once you have a dog or a horse on this planet, getting one on some planet 200 light years away becomes several orders of magnitude easier, same thing with any complex idea or concept more or less. I don’t see how that explains getting life as we know it from inanimate matter. Sheldrake doesn’t seem to be saying anything about abiogenesis.

[The Comedian]

Sheldrake doesn’t seem to be saying anything about abiogenesis.

Agreed. It's not an exact match, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Remove time as separate dimension, and include the enfolded universe variables, and you get closer. And it's not abiogenic. That distinction starts from the viewpoint that there is such a thing as inanimate matter. What I'm suggesting is that all matter is more or less a projection of a deeper animation, in which case nothing is abiogenic, just from our perspective, it may appear to be pre-biogenic. And that may be wrong too.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[scottdeus12]

“One of the main reasons that I am not a Christian is all the Christians who insist that if I reject the concept that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I am rejecting the entire faith.”

Those who are insisting YEC as a standard for being a Christian are wrong - period. That IS NOT a primary salvation issue at all....

Scott

[meadsjn]

A recent article reported that 40 percent of the population believe in creationism.

50 percent of the population are below average IQ.

So even 20% of those people who are dumber than a box of rocks know that creationism is a joke.

[wendy1946]

The problem: No version of creationism requires belief in infinite sequences of probabilistic miracles and outright zero-probability events as does evolution. In other words, a reasonable person could at least listen to a theory which demanded one or two probabilistic miracles but evolution stands everything we know about modern mathematics and probability theory on their heads. In other words, ANY religion is better than evolution, including Voodoo and Rastafari.

[RobRoy]

>>No one in flesh walking this earth can with for a certainty date this earth. But all the evidence demonstrates this earth is very very old.<<

Out of curiosity, if you could have met Adam the day after he was created, how old would you have guessed he was?

[Just mythoughts]

Out of curiosity, if you could have met Adam the day after he was created, how old would you have guessed he was?

Interesting question I have never considered. We are given no indication how much time elapsed from Genesis 2:7 until Genesis 2:21 when the woman was created.

Given what we are told from Genesis 2:7 on, I would 'guess' based upon what little I know, Adam would have been mentally younger than 25, physically at least 21-25. He was to have a 'tough' time making ends meet after he directly disobeyed the Heavenly Father, and yet lived 930 years. So physically speaking Adam would by necessity had to have been in excellent physical shape. Mentally speaking he surely lived a long time regretting his disobedience.

[RobRoy]

I ask that question of myself and others for this reason: If God could create a man that, even though he was only a day old, he appeared in every way to be a full grown man (and all of the previous development time that would cause one to infer), why could he not create a planet that, the day after it was created it appeared to be “fully developed” (and all the previous development time that would cause one to infer).

OTOH, I think our current world really IS best explained by the movie “the matrix”. Think about it. Matter does not really exist. It is just “coagulated energy”. It is merely perceived to exist in the form we “see and touch” it.

IOW, I feel like we are basically the equivalent of a bunch of first graders, after our first exposure to a teacher telling us those points of light in the night sky are just suns a long way away, trying to explain everything.

We don’t know what we don’t know by so many orders of magnitude that these discussions sometimes actually make me laugh out loud. I’m not so much impressed with what we know as I am with so much that we DON’T know.

[Just mythoughts]

I ask that question of myself and others for this reason: If God could create a man that, even though he was only a day old, he appeared in every way to be a full grown man (and all of the previous development time that would cause one to infer), why could he not create a planet that, the day after it was created it appeared to be “fully developed” (and all the previous development time that would cause one to infer). OTOH, I think our current world really IS best explained by the movie “the matrix”. Think about it. Matter does not really exist. It is just “coagulated energy”. It is merely perceived to exist in the form we “see and touch” it. IOW, I feel like we are basically the equivalent of a bunch of first graders, after our first exposure to a teacher telling us those points of light in the night sky are just suns a long way away, trying to explain everything. We don’t know what we don’t know by so many orders of magnitude that these discussions sometimes actually make me laugh out loud. I’m not so much impressed with what we know as I am with so much that we DON’T know

Ah. Interesting that I so noted the point of what I could not know with the information given, specifically in regard to the age a full grown Adam.

The claims are not over what God 'could' do, they are statements of FACT called theories or religious doctrines explaining what God did or did not do which are against what He elected/predestined some to put into writing.

Genesis 1:2 is probably the most overlooked, and least understood verse in the whole of the WORD. It says there was an event wherein this earth was made inhabitable after a 'time' declared in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood and Peter affirms this as another witness in IIPeter 3. Now some claim they hold Peter's keys, but they willingly ignore what Peter's keys unlock. What Peter got were keys that Peter put into writing it was not a locksmith business that evolves as politically correct pressures require a new set of keys.

Yes, absolutely God could do anything He decides. But to ignore what He said He did is called 'sottish' by Him.

[RobRoy]

I hate to sound dense, but I read the scriptures you referenced, read and reread your post, and I’m not sure what you are trying to communicate. Could you “dumb it down” a bit?

[RobRoy]

I would like to respond to you saying that Genesis 1:2 said there was a flood. I think that is not really accurate. At least as I see it. When taken in context with 1:9 I see it as the earth being like a cue ball with a relatively uniform earthen surface covered by a relatively consistent layer of water.. And then the ground lifted up in places to be above the water and in 1:10 He calls the dry ground “land”.

To interpret the scripture to say “there was a flood” is kinda like saying there is “a flood” in the middle of the Pacific. A flood implies normally dry ground that is flooded with water. I think Genesis 1:9 describes the first time ever that land was above the water.

In fact, one could argue that in Genesis 1:2, where it says the earth was “formless and empty” that it was sort of describing an “earth” that was nothing BUT water. Of course, within the context of our current physical laws, that would not be possible. there would be interesting pressures on the water at the center of this giant water drop in space.

But I am starting to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all run the risk of arguing information that is our inference only.

[Just mythoughts]

I would like to respond to you saying that Genesis 1:2 said there was a flood. I think that is not really accurate. At least as I see it. When taken in context with 1:9 I see it as the earth being like a cue ball with a relatively uniform earthen surface covered by a relatively consistent layer of water.. And then the ground lifted up in places to be above the water and in 1:10 He calls the dry ground “land”. To interpret the scripture to say “there was a flood” is kinda like saying there is “a flood” in the middle of the Pacific. A flood implies normally dry ground that is flooded with water. I think Genesis 1:9 describes the first time ever that land was above the water. In fact, one could argue that in Genesis 1:2, where it says the earth was “formless and empty” that it was sort of describing an “earth” that was nothing BUT water. Of course, within the context of our current physical laws, that would not be possible. there would be interesting pressures on the water at the center of this giant water drop in space. But I am starting to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We all run the risk of arguing information that is our inference only.

When did the first rebel rebel? He is symbolically called the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. When did the evil happen and what was the evil knowledge that this tree symbolically speaking contained? When did this division occur? The first rebel is not fully described in his 'origin' until Ezekiel 28:12--- and slightly different 'fallen' description in Isaiah 14:12---.

Moses was not yet born of woman when the events of Genesis up to Exodus 2, and up until Exodus 3, Moses was treated and educated as Egyptian.

None can call Moses uneducated, or solely indoctrinated in the 'Hebrew' tradition, he had a 'secular/pagan' upbringing at the very least and at most training of the knowledge of Pharaohs.

So what Moses penned up to his first hand experience and personal observation would be of necessity Divine inspired WORD.

Moses is given and pens a 'chronology' of events without the date and time of Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. What can be dated with a 'comfortable' measure of time is how long ago Adam was formed.

Genesis 1:2 'WAS' not the state of creation, but 'became' without form, and void; Without form means 'waste', and apparently the Divine wanted it to be known that He did not created a 'waste' as so noted in Isaiah 45:18.

There is no mention of the creation in Moses account of the creation/formation of the dinosaurs, yet, they are described in Job. I have read that Moses is the most likely author of the book of Job, and if that is the case then Moses would have had the Egyptian education working in his mind as he was given the WORD to pen.

Jeremiah 4:19-31 speaks of a destruction where everything was destroyed, and Jeremiah uses the very same words (Hebrew) as used in Genesis 1:2 'without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light'.

Christ and Paul use the word 'foundation', and when that word is defined to the prime it means casting down/overthrow. And Peter says there are three different heaven/earth worlds/ages and the world that WAS was destroyed by water and all that lived perished. Noah's flood was brought forth to protect the bloodline to Christ.

[RobRoy]

Interesting hypotheses. I’ll have to ask God about them after I die.

The problem with a lot of this “educated speculation” on what is meant by the words used in the Genisis account of creation is that the information is incomplete. Or, a better explanation would be that it is incomplete within the context of what we humans actually know. I think that much of the bible, when dealing with things spiritual or without eyewitness account, is akin to explaining the color “red” to a person that only sees grayscale. It is amazing it is able to communicate anything at all.

I am also reminded of the line in a song by the group Genesis: “They’re trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause.”