According to 6days, "Selection and mutations causing a loss of genetic diversity" is "the biblical creation model". Color me skeptical of this claim. Can you provide chapter and verse for any of that?
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
According to 6days, "Selection and mutations causing a loss of genetic diversity" is "the biblical creation model". Color me skeptical of this claim. Can you provide chapter and verse for any of that?
Right Divider
Body part
The Biblical model is that the initial creation was perfect and did not have nor need "mutations that get selected". Since the fall and the flood... that changed. Now there are mutations that are constantly causing more and more damage to the existing genomes. It's all downhill and not uphill.
And where is all of that said in the Bible about mutations, genomes, etc?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
In the KJV, at least, I cannot find any of the words 'selection', 'mutations', 'genetic', 'diversity', 'biblical', and 'model'. So, no--I can't provide chapter and verse for those. Sorry. However, I could, were it absolutely urgent to do so, provide chapter and verse for all instances of the words 'and', 'causing', 'a', 'loss', 'of', 'the' and 'creation'; but I'm not going to bother about that, since it would be exceeding laborious--and pointless--to do such documentation for you. If you need the info, though, feel free to consult Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, or some other readily available resource. Hope that helps.
Ok, so just to be clear about what is going on here...You guys are taking your understanding, or misunderstanding, of modern science, and inferring--nay, imposing--your modern scientific understanding, or the lack thereof, upon the text of the Bible, to make the claim that the Bible says something that it, in point of fact, does not say? Got it.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You don't agree that the Bible says that God created man? Obviously you listen too much to the ravings of the space alien that somehow physically transported you from your bed through a solid wall without using a door or window.
I, for one, don't call anything that I esteem highly, "modern science". When I see idiot after Darwinist idiot try to defy truth and logic, and falling on your faces in doing so, every time, and when I realize that a fig leaf of a meaningless phrase like "modern science" is so precious to y'all, I have no qualm with letting you have your precious prop--though the "science" part of your phrase is a misnomer. I go with logic and truth--you can stick with your nonsense, falshood, and confusion (your "modern science") since, by your conditioning, all that rot somehow feels fulfilling to you--or, at least, you let on like it does.
Nanu Nanu.
Oh.
6days
New member
Hey User... I'm not sure what you believe, but you seem to be arguing against the Bible, without any understanding what the Bible says.User Name said:
The Bible tells us that God and His works are perfect. The Bible tells us that that the perfect creation was corrupted, and we now have pain suffering and death.
Science helps confirm the biblical model. For example in humans, we see genetic load irreversibly increasing. Selection is incapable of detecting and removing 70+ VSDM's with the birth rate less than 2. it is exciting times for bible-believing Christians as science helps confirm the biblical model.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Depends on how you define "dog" or wolf for that matter.
Dogs evolved from wolves, and in the cladistic sense they are still wolves. But in the colloquial sense (which is apparently the definition you're trying to use), is this a wolf?
Is it a wolf or a non-wolf?
In terms of cranial anatomy there is already more diversity within the domestic dog than the entire ORDER carnivora. So I'm just not getting how you say, that kind of evolution happens and over longer periods of time it's not possible for say cats and dogs to share a common ancestor.
Maybe some sort of medieval Christian theology says all that, but the Bible itself does say any of it.
The Bible describes God's creation as "good", not "perfect". The only ones punished for disobeying God were Adam, Eve, and the snake- not all creation. And there is no textual basis for
saying that death didn't exist before that fruit was eaten. The only mention of death in the story is God's threat (repeated by Eve and the snake) that they will die if they eat that fruit. Which actually implies that "death" was a known concept- otherwise it would have been a meaningless threat.
I find it curious that the same people who insist on a literal reading of the Creation also insist on a allegorical reading of "The Fall". The text doesn't say anything about the snake being Satan, or "death" being "spiritual death".
Actually, it doesn't say that. God said His creation was "very good." Not "perfect."
Right Divider
Body part
Why do think that it needs to specifically mention those?
It does mention genomes when is says that God created kinds that reproduce after their kind.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
To what are you referring by your orphaned pronoun, "it"? To a wolf, or to a non-wolf? What (if anything) are you asking, exactly?
- Are you asking whether a wolf is a wolf or a non-wolf?
- Are you asking whether a non-wolf is a wolf or a non-wolf?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So you think that for something to be perfect is for it to not be good? Tell us where, in Genesis 1-2, you imagine you have a textual basis for saying that all that God had created was imperfect.
Where, in Genesis, did you read that the serpent was disobeying God? Quote, from the first three chapters of Genesis, where you think there is (to use your phrase) a textual basis for saying that God had given the serpent a commandment to obey, and that the serpent, subsequently, disobeyed this commandment; and inform us as to exactly what that commandment was.
Tell us what is the textual basis for your claim that death existed before the forbidden fruit was eaten.
In other words, you have no textual basis for your claim that death existed before the forbidden fruit was eaten. Thank you.
By "the only mention of death in the story", do you mean the only occurrence of the word, 'death', in the story?
So, God's revelation to Adam and Eve that they would die (according to you) could not have been the origin of Adam and Eve's knowing about death? You say that because you're a God-despising, Bible-despising empiricist. You're a friend of the serpent--not a friend of God.
And, note that you said "implies that "death" was a known concept"--you did not say "implies that "the death of Adam and Eve" was a known concept". Why'd you choose to say the former, and choose to not say the latter? Would you say that, before God had commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit--and before He had told them they would surely die--Adam and Eve already somehow knew that they would surely die? Tell us how (according to your imagination) they learned that they would surely die, before their having been told by God that they would surely die.
Your phrase, "meaningless threat", is another oxymoron. Whatever is a threat is meaningful; whatever is meaningless is not a threat.
Do you insist on a literal reading of the statement, "it was very good", in Genesis 1:31?
Says the hypocrite who--providing no textual basis for it from Genesis--just told us that the serpent was disobeying God. Again, where does the text say that the serpent was disobeying God?
: popcorn-eating-happy-face:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Is a Pug, the picture I showed, a wolf or not.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Alate_One
Well-known member
Now who's avoiding questions?
Don't feed the troll.