Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Darwin doesn’t allow for anything. God creates. And it is quite likely that he uses the vehicle of evolution in his plan.
Can physics be used to predict what the the long range effects that nuclear weapons will have on life on this planet?
This quibble over the definition of “creationist” is silly. Look up “creationism”:
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. [Dictionary.com Unabridged]
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
Words in use take on meanings beyond their literal, most restricted definitions. That’s why in politics “liberal” doesn’t mean generous. Everyone knows what “creationist” means in these discussions.
I also think it’s amusing that people who toss around terms like “evo-atheist” are suddenly so concerned with the accuracy of labels.
It didn't work both ways. There's an overview here, on the off chance you're really interested.
"The human foot still shows the tell-tale signs of our tree dwelling ancestry. But, its shape has changed to facilitate walking on the ground. There are many changes that I could talk about, but one of the more obvious is the adducted big toe. In humans the big toe (the hallux) has moved in line with the other toes (it is permanently adducted). This transforms the hallux into a propulsive organ (we push off with our hallux at each step), rather than a grasping organ. In most other primates the hallux is normally in an abducted position (out of line with the other toes), which allows it to grasp objects like the thumb.
"The loss of this grasping ability for the hallux is a key change in the evolution of human locomotion. "
Yeah, I was going to warn you that I didn't think holding your breath was a good idea.
You’re saying that most mutations are beneficial, and that the primary document of the Christian faith is B.S.?
You’re free to live in a fantasy; it’s a free country.
to allmen [[By portraying *creationists* as people who invariably believe all manner of nonsense like you claim, you do nothing to support conservatism.]]
He she has shown they aren’t interested in intellectual honesty when discussing matters- all they are interested in is maligning Creationists no matter whether somethign is false-
You got it.
consider the following statement, written by Wilhelmus a’Brakel in 1700
“The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, ... Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth.” (Wilhelmus a’Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service. pp. 64-66)
a’Brakel was certainly a learned man for his day, and like today’s young earth creationists, sought to be faithful to the Scriptures. However, those who would actually hold to a’Brakel’s geocentrism today are very few in number. Certainly, modern astronomy has affected our interpretation of Psalm 104:5. Should it not affect Genesis 1 as well?
Here to we also find the view that the Creationist movement has of science in general.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-209.htm
“I’m never going to get caught in the trap of trying to prove to you that Genesis is true by science. I’m just going to proclaim to you what Genesis says and let science bow its knee to that explanation.”
Minister John MacArthur
Psalms 104:5
He hath founded earth on its bases, It is not moved to the age and for ever.
Young’s Literal Translation
I said nothing of the kind.
God controls evolution, so your post presents a false choice.
Nope, evolution is not compatible with what God has said He’s done and what I described. My post stands.
The square peg of evolution cannot be driven into the round hole of Biblical creation.
Look up the meaning of ‘quibble.’ Words are indeed, over time, given a meaning beyond their literal and strict definitions. For example, when someone finds a discussion becoming uncomfortable or perhaps taking an undesirable turn, they often try to dismiss it as a “silly quibble.”
Look up “creationism””
I did:
Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament.
. . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003
Creationism n 1 In philosophy, the doctrine that matter and each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution.
. . . . . Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937
The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary doesn’t show the word ‘creationism’ or ‘creationist’ but simply defines the word ‘Creation’ as “The act of creating; the act of causing to exist; and especially, the act of bringing this world into existence (emphasis mine).
Not substantially different from your own. I prefer mine, of course, because . . . well, they are my dictionaries, but also because they deliver an understanding I’ve held as far back as I can remember knowledge of and use of the word (over sixty years).
allmendream himself acknowledges an ordinary understanding of the word as well as a more particular meaning. Quoting, “A Creationist is shorthand for a “Special creation”ist, i.e. someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis and denies the evidence for evolution; not just anyone who believes that God was responsible for creation.” He concedes the prevalence of the ordinary understanding of the word when he admits his use to be a shorthand for another and special meaning of the word. Quite rightly I asked, and do again ask, why did allmendream use the generic term when he intended a different meaning than the ordinary.
”Words in use take on meanings beyond their literal, most restricted definitions. That’s why in politics “liberal” doesn’t mean generous. Everyone knows what “creationist” means in these discussions.”
No, everyone doesn’t know that’s what ‘creationist’ means in these discussions. You sound just like the Democrats when they say “everyone knows” that ‘Conservative’ means ‘take from the poor and give to the rich.’ It’s right that you should mention politics because that’s what is going on here. You wish your meaning of ‘Creationist’ to prevail, and for the ordinary meaning to disappear into the night. Those who can dictate the meaning of terms in a discussion can attain political domination. Your intervention in this discussion is an attempt to restore a political domination that you perceive to be slipping.
”I also think it’s amusing that people who toss around terms like “evo-atheist” are suddenly so concerned with the accuracy of labels.”
Curb your amusement for a moment. I don’t recall using the term ‘evo-atheist’ at all, but if you can cite an example where I used it on someone who was not openly and avowedly both an Evolutionist and an Atheist, then they have my apologies in advance. Nor do I recall ever being indifferent to accuracy about anything, but if you can cite an instance, please do, and I will hasten to make most sorrowful amends.
That is, if you want to quibble about it.
Well for the third human on this planet to have come from other than two other humans would require somebody inventing a bodacious Yarn of some sort..
Although just a Yarn it would have to capture imaginations and spin a tale of enormous scope.. Science fiction must seem very logical, reality need not be so logical.. You know... because its TRUE.. and must convince no one..
I would prefer to consider Of God and His Creatures, the words of Saint Thos Aquinas, perhaps older of vintage but surely of wiser council:
7: That the Truth of reason is not contrary to the Truth of Christian Faith
”THE natural dictates of reason must certainly be quite true: it is impossible to think of their being otherwise. Nor again is it permissible to believe that the tenets of faith are false, being so evidently confirmed by God. Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”
In other words, if our understanding of natural things is in conflict with our understanding of the Bible, then one or the other understanding is false (possibly both). In the case of Wilhelmus a’Brakel, it seems he did not heed the advice of Aquinas and was twice wrong as a consequence. He allowed his mistaken understanding of a natural occurrence to warp his understanding of the Bible. Or was it the other way around? Perhaps history records. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Dutchman to know. But I do not know why I should be confronted with a’Brakel’s errors. I will make enough of my own, as will you, my friend.
As to how it should affect Genesis, I do not know. I know I waited the first twenty eight years of my life for Science to discover there was a beginning.
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.