6days
New member
As you said..... common ancestry beliefs are not a hindrance to a belief in some type of god. However, common ancestry beliefs do contradict the Bible and destroy the foundation of the Gospel.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
6days
New member
Greg... you said yesterday you are a Christian. Yet you don't seem to understand why God became flesh and went to the cross. Why would sacrifice be necessary in the OT? Why is the shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness of sin? Without a literal first Adam, the sacrifice of Last Adam would be meaningless.
6days
New member
No you asked what VSDM's were so that you could answer my question. The abstract tells you. Do you need more help?
6days
New member
Not sure your point on Collins? He was an atheist and evolutionist... Now believes in God. He still is a theistic evolutionist.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Right Divider
Body part
You can also make that claim until the cows come home.... it's simply not true.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
For you, "reasoned with" entails a creationist stepping out of creationist convictions and allowing for natural causes. Can you step out of your naturalistic convictions and entertain supernatural causes?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sure, accepting evolution and established science regarding the age of the earth and the universe doesn't rule out God as the cause/creator anyway. Creationism on the other hand rules out any evidence that doesn't fit in with a literal reading of Genesis.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes it is, because that's how science works and evolution is no different. Theories are formulated because of the evidence that support them and denying that is pointless.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't deny the evidence. I deny your interpretation of the evidence.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
They contradict YEC, not the same thing.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The point is that there's no cognitive dissonance in having faith in God and accepting evolution. Collins reflects that.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You'd deny anything that doesn't conform to your dogmatic belief system. The fact remains that the theory of evolution is accepted because of the evidence for it no matter how much you may like to think otherwise. That's how science works.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, no. Science isn't about that at all and it's an argument from bias or ignorance to state such. Evolution doesn't rule out God as cause as evidenced by the myriad scientists who have faith. It's a silly argument you have here and an erroneous one if you seriously think the goal of science is to 'do away with God'.
Right Divider
Body part
Jose Fly
New member
First, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Secondly, it brings up an interesting question....if GA doesn't believe populations acquire new traits via evolution, nor does he believe traits spread through populations via selection, what exactly does he think happens? Let's take the example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Does he believe God not only gave them the ability to resist our antibiotics, but God also deliberately spread that ability through the population?
Greg Jennings
New member
Here is the entire abstract verbatim. Please highlight where VDSMs are explained.
"It is well known that whens,the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below ≈ 1/4Ne, whereNeis the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ≈ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size,G,in nucleotides substantially exceeds theNeof the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G< s<//E2>< 1/4Ne. Mutations withswithin this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebratesNe≈ 104, whileG≈ 109, so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10−6, an average individual carries ≈ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies to high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."
Greg Jennings
New member
Sacrifice is necessary bc humanity kept screwing up and had to be redeemed. That's what the sacrifice of Christ was for.
Why is a "first man" necessitated by that?
Greg Jennings
New member
Dodge count: 1
Why did all of geology/biology once believe as you do, then REJECT your theory after centuries of gathering evidence?