Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MarDav; Sentis; Conservative Texan Mom; metmom; antonius; js1138
I hope you do not take offense, I would like to address a few things in your post to Sentis.

You offered, "... given all the order, all the precision, all the detail, all the vastness, all the delicacy of creation, that it is evident there is a mind at work, and not some vast series of events that, by all statistical accounts, are impossible." First, the advent of life from the pre-life conditions is supportable in Genesis, thus not 'statistically impossible'. Second, there is an astonishing delicacy in the record of life on this marvelous orb. The Genesis account implies that life was the proper order of things as started with the first 'bara', and even states that the earth brought forth life. Science is gradually figuring out the particulars of how the Earth brought forth life.

Before addressing the biblical connections, allow me to offer that, as a big fan of minds which find patterns and seek to define the patterns, I see what Charles Darwin did as one of the finest examples of a mind discerning a pattern and then giving a pretty darn good accounting of that pattern given the current science of his day; Darwin's revelation of the pattern was downright inspiration! Subsequent developments in genetics and the discoveries regarding DNA complexity in gene expression have actually reinforced the better portions of Darwin's amazing pattern discovery. Now to the biblical connections.

The Hebrew word 'bara' (there should be a little 'tent' mark over each "a") conveys creation, as in something brand new brought into existence not shaded from something already existing. The word is used three times in Genesis: the creation of spacetime and light, the creation of land species taken broadly to mean multicellular animals, the creation of Adam as a living soul.

The second instance regarding multicellular animals may well be evidenced with the Cambrian explosion and the scarcity of such complex creatures gradually showing up in fossil records leading to the Cambrian explosion.

Reading Genesis with a seeking mind allows one to see that Adam (adamah is the Hebrew word for dust or slime of earth) was already an alive being but became a living soul with the breath of God into his nostrils. If one takes a long view in Genesis, God actually did form Adam from the dust of the ground, except it took billions of years to reach the Adam into whom God breathed His Spirit such that Adam's soul of life became spiritually endowed.

As to Eve and the rib ... red bone makes an excellent source for the stem cells one might use to alter existing genetic status in order to allow Adam to have a mate after being remade so special that he was unique on the Earth in his day. That wouldn't necessarily mean he could not mate with existing hominid females, but he was given a special mate perhaps having non-degraded mitochondria (for example). Scripture says plainly that Cain went into the land of Nod and took himself a wife. He wasn't mating with his sister there. And it is also likely from the biblical account that Adam fathered sons and daughters with females other than Eve. we are given the names of only three children resulting from the mating of Adam and Eve: Cain, Abel, and Seth.

211 posted on 08/16/2006 9:58:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: ofwaihhbtn

ping


212 posted on 08/16/2006 11:10:05 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]

To: MHGinTN

My note to Sentis about the statistical impossibility related to the theory of evolution en toto, particularly the development of the the creation of proteins and DNA.

I am no scientist. I am not one who gets overly caught up in these evolution/creation debates, as I haven't the time to "study to show myself approved" in this area. I certainly must acknowledge those whose exploration of the sciences have gained for them the valuable information they use to respond to question about this topic. Where I take issue is when folks walk around with that information, non-definitive though it may be, and beat you over the head with it wondering why you, simple-minded you, are stuck somewhere in the...what was it? 6th century? That is arrogance, condescension, call it what you will. Evolutionists' time-frame for all this supposed evolving has changed as discoveries are made. Sometimes new discoveries have negated old findings, theories disproven and, rather than acknowledge that what is not known is sufficient to cause people to speculate, wonder, doubt, disbelieve, they revile you for not trusting, not believing them, after all they have all this knowledge already.

The creation account in Genesis talks about the pre-life conditions this way, "In the beginning, God..." The order of creation, then, certainly follows a distinct progression/order. There is nothing in the account, though, that suggests the pre-life conditions (God) had need for any 10's of billions of years happenstancical (new word, enjoy) series of events. It seems to me that would bring into question the pre-life condition we mentioned--God. If God is God, can He create? If God is God, can He form Adam from the dust? It's funny, but when you die that is exactly what your decaying mass becomes, why couldn't it start that way? Oh yeah, I forgot, because it's scientifically impossible. What that argument does is to take God and reduce Him to some fellow scientist, wearing a white lab coat standing in some cosmic laboratory carefully monitoring experiments. That's not the record of the God of the Bible. God, who created the laws of physics is greater than the laws of physics. He doesn't rely on them for his existence, neither is He limited by them in His actions. This understanding about God is flawed, erroneous, untrue. Speculations about, say, Cain's wife, are good for discussion, but do nothing in the way of advancing either biblical or scientific understanding. They only serve to frame arguments whereby we try to bring God into our line of thinking. This is not a good practice.

The God of the Bible looks for faith ("for without faith it is impossible to please Him,")--not blind faith, not simple-minded faith, but seeing faith. The scientific community and all their discoveries in the vastness of space, as well as in the complexity of the smallest observable microscopic organism can observe amazing wonders. What they are seeing is evidence of the God of the Bible and His creative mind. They are observing wonders, incredible things that speak of design, purpose, a mind at work. Creation proves God and His existence ("...that which may be known of God is manifest in them for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."--Rom. 1:19-20) Those verses are God's way of testifying to Himself, in part, about the role of creation--it is a testimony of His existence. It is God saying, "See and believe." Sometimes believing is seeing.


214 posted on 08/17/2006 4:41:27 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson