Posted on 10/08/2008 7:21:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It’s Fun Seeing Evolution Falsified
Oct 8, 2008 — “Mysterious Snippets Of DNA Withstand Eons Of Evolution” is the strange title of an article on Science Daily. Gill Bejerano and Cory McLean from Stanford are wondering why large non-coding sections of DNA are very similar, or “ultraconserved,” from mice to man. Evolutionary theory would expect that non-functional genetic material would mutate more rapidly than genes. Yet for unknown reasons, the ultraconserved segments stay the same throughout the mammal order. Experiments have shown that mice with these sections deleted do just fine. Why would natural selection purify these regions if they are not essential for survival?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The actual Nature article is subscription only. Do you pretend to think there is no data that went into that chart? Would an entire phylogenetic paper (out of many thousands) with the data included convince you that actual genomic data went into it?
You are taking that passage out of context. If you look at the entire scripture you will see that that part is relating to how time is of no matter once we reach heaven. It is not realting to the 6 day creation or endorsing the gap theory.
You are taking that passage out of context. If you look at the entire scripture you will see that that part is relating to how time is of no matter once we reach heaven. It is not relating to the 6 day creation or endorsing the gap theory.
It is very strange that only after the rise of science, by and large, did Christians or Jews decide that the first chapters of Genesis had to be read ‘literally’. Blessed Augustine concluded they could not be literally true. St. Basil the Great, whose Hexameron is adduced as a patristic support for a literal reading, nonetheless writes in that work, “It matters not whether you say ‘a day’ or ‘an aeon’, the thought is the same.” St. Gregory of Nyssa called the first two chapters of Genesis, “doctrines in the guise of a narrative.” St. Gregory the Theologian (Westerners usually call him St. Gregory of Nazianzus) selected as sound commentary on Genesis 1 and 2 some passages from the always-allegorical Origen.
Among notable Jewish commentators, neither Maimonides nor Nachmanides upheld a literalist reading. Philo of Alexandria flatly denied it.
And I think I am in good company in applying Psalm 89 (as an Orthodox Christian I follow the LXX numbering, you might know it as Psalm 90, since protestants tend to follow the Masorete) to the interpretation of Genesis: St. Justin the Philosopher (Westerners usually call him Justin Martyr) applied the verse to the time scales in Genesis in his Dialog with Trypho.
Your interpretation, applying the fifth verse to us in heaven, rather than to God, whose majesty and unlikeness to us is the whole theme of the psalm, is quite frankly unsupportable either by a plain reading of the text (you are trying to uphold a literal reading of Scripture aren’t you? or is it just parts of Scripture that don’t jive with science when read literally that have to be read literally?) or by reading it in the context of Holy Tradition.
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.