Posted on 02/18/2009 8:49:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The genetic puppeteer
by David White
Back in 2005 a group of researchers published a landmark study on a question that has long puzzled geneticists: why aren’t identical twins … identical? Considering that they have the same DNA sequence in each of their cells, it seems a bit strange that they often possess a number of physical differences, such as different fingerprints, and different susceptibilities to disease. This raises the question: if two people can have identical DNA sequences and yet be so different, is there more to our genetic blueprint than just DNA?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Oh . . . My . . . God!
I'm in trouble.
Talk to anybody who's grown up with identical twins, and you'll find that the differences between them are evident from a very early age -- personality as well as physical characteristics.
Here's another one: for about 20% of identical twins, one is right-handed and the other is left-handed. (I knew a couple of guys in college who had this characteristic.)
Based on the number of Google hits, there's obviously a lot of interest in the differences between identical twins....
There, that’s better :o)
Thanks for the ping!
Except for the pesky parts in Genesis where it says that God created different kinds of animals and plants in different acts of creation.
Gen 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. (on the third day)
Gen 1:20-21 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. (on the fifth day)
Gen 1:24 & 25 24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (on the sixth day)
Gen 2: 7 ..the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (on the sixth day)
And it clearly says, “Let the land produce vegetation”, and “Let the water teem “, and “Let the land produce “, and “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground”.
Nowhere does it indicate that living creatures were created from each other or in any other way that there was some common ancestor that ALL life came from.
The only reason that there is the need to make Genesis be read as an allegory, is to force it to conform to the current naturalistic interpretation of the no-God allowed creation account of the scientific community.
“The only reason that there is the need to make Genesis be read as an allegory, is to force it to conform to the current naturalistic interpretation of the no-God allowed creation account of the scientific community.”
This statement is wrong on many levels. First of all, God is not only allowed in science, he is welcome. Most believers in evolution are devoutly religious, as am I. If you are not going to interpret Genesis with the context of available observation, then you need to ensure that you communicate that as faith, and not as science. To state otherwise is a selfish co-opting of Christianity and betrays a weakness in one’s own faith.
God gave us the brains to figure out how he got us here; he’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.
I get so sick of people trying to manipulate creationists into believing evolution by accusing them of having *weak faith*. It’s not going to work.
On the contrary, I would think that it’s the people with the weak faith that have to twist Scripture to match science because they don’t have the strong enough faith to believe God over the subjective interpretation of man’s observations when there’s an apparent conflict between the two.
It’s precisely because those htat beleive in Macroevolution have a weak faith due to the lack of evidnece supporting Macroeovlution (And worse yet, the facts point out that macroevolution is biologically, mathematically, chemically, and naturally impossible) that they have to try to manipulate those who beleive God’s word AND beleive the available science that shows macroevolution is impossible. Unfortunately, It’s goign to remain a never ending attempt to shore up their weak faith in Macroevolution by trying to intimidate and ridicule those hwo beleive that actual evidences and beleive God said what He meant, and meant what He said. Chemicals do NOT give rise to Metainformation- it is impossible for htis to happen, but those that beleive Megaevolution MUST ignore htis, and hte only way to ‘reconcile’ this impossibility with hteir beleifs in natural impossibilities is by ridiculing htose what point out hte obvious impossibilities.
Following are two articles that discuss and expose the impossibility of Chemicals giving birth to metainformaiton for htose reading htis htread that might be under the mistaken impression that “God and evolution” are “Compatible”- the fact is that Nature creating life is simply not ‘compatible’, but rather it is impossible for nature to do so, so no- “God and Macroevolution” are NOT ‘Compatible’ because hte process of Macroevolution itself is not ‘compatible’ with reality:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5279
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6172/
No, the twisting comes from the literalists who refuse to acknowledge that one can support evolution and still be a Christian. Adherence to the literal inerrancy implies an inability to be have faith without the book.
[[No, the twisting comes from the literalists who refuse to acknowledge that one can support evolution and still be a Christian.]]
Well now, that isn’t true at all- We fully accept that Christians CAN indeed be in error- but we also know that many people CALL themselves Christians, but haven’t truly accepted the Gift of Salvation, and therefore are spiritually blind still- Lot’s of people love calling htemselves Christians, but aren’t God’s children simply because htey have never taken the step of accepting Christ as Savior- thinking htey can earn hteir own salvation their own way by ‘being good enough’ that God must therefore accept them. Many people know about God, but not many actually KNOW God as Father. Those hwo don’t- often try to manipulate htose who do by twisting God’s word to firt their wapred ideology and beleif in natural impossibilities like Macroeovlution- not sayign you fit htis catagory- but don’t be accusign Christians of somethign that is UNTRUE! We DO acknowledge that some TRUE CHristians may be in error concerning God’s word and natural observations of hte facts and evidences.
“We fully accept that Christians CAN indeed be in error- but we also know that many people CALL themselves Christians, but haven’t truly accepted the Gift of Salvation, and therefore are spiritually blind still- Lot’s of people love calling htemselves Christians, but aren’t God’s children simply because htey have never taken the step of accepting Christ as Savior...”
What absolute rot! You first say that my post is inaccurate, then you proceed to recite all the reasons that non-literalists aren’t real Christians! Sorry, but this post is a parody of your own position.
lol- I NEVER said ALL non literalists aren’t Christians- infact I made it VERY clear that some TRUE CHristians CAN infact be in error-
Apparently you MUST misrepresent what I actually said in order to come to your “What absolute rot!” conclusion? Is that perhaps exactly the process you use to come to the conclusio nthat God meaning “DAY” is 24 hours is “Absolute Rot”? And that God creating man and woman (and every other species for that matter- fully formed, fully functional) is “Absolute Rot”? lol whatever- Reread my post- you are INTENTIONALLY misrepresentign what I said and why I said it- but hten again, I’ve coem to expect nothign less you folks!
I believe that you know I was referring to your post and its conclusion as rot (and still do), not the scripture.
Interesting. I had not heard that before. The question is, are these slight variations enough to explain all the differences. Or is it a combination of differences re: genetics, epigenetics (which responds to environment, life choices, etc), etc, etc.
[[I believe that you know I was referring to your post and its conclusion as rot (and still do), not the scripture.]]
Whatever- I’m sure you substitute another word for ‘rot’ when trying to dismiss His word.
Thank you. Have a nice day.
Apparently your memo isn't getting out because your pal allmendream here has on several occasions stated "God has no place in science class".
God gave us the brains to figure out how he got us here; he’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.
Kettle meet pot! And for someone to say this and genuinely mean it, then why the endless contortions to keep children from understanding it?
If you guys understand science and religion and logic this way, it must really be something to see what y'all think philosophically! (I've already seen a slip or two about separation of church and state).
Now I know why you ignored my question to you to define Christianity!
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.