Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Not that Episcopalians have much cachet around here, but here goes:

Does this picture of human evolution conflict with the biblical statement that we humans are made in the image and likeness of God?

The phrase does not refer to a physical image and likeness, since God is spirit (John 4:24).  Theologians have sought to explain “image and likeness” in various ways: that it refers to those divine gifts of unconditional love and compassion, our reason and imagination, our moral and ethical capacities, our freedom, or our creativity.  To think that these gifts may have been bestowed through the evolutionary process does not conflict with biblical and theological notions that God acts in creation.  Scripture affirms that God was involved (Gen. 1:26-27).

....
If God creates through evolutionary processes, how may this awareness enhance my spiritual life?

The God of evolution is the biblical God, subtle and gracious, who interacts with and rejoices in the enormous variety, diversity, and beauty of this evolving creation.  When we contemplate the tremendous gift of freedom God has bestowed upon the creation, and how the Holy Spirit preserves in covenantal faithfulness the physical laws, powers and processes that enable such variety and beauty, these thoughts may move our hearts to a deeper admiration, awe and gratitude for God’s works.  They may inspire a curiosity to know God’s creation more deeply, celebrate it with thanksgiving, and devote ourselves to caring for it.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
laconicstudent said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
I note the article uses the words "much of", not "all".
It's no use, Laconic. Those scientists are sweating beads from fear that they'll be exposed for the great conspiracy to invalidate some people's interpretation of the Bible. That's their life's work, down the toilet. Which is exactly the reason they appear calm and are making no effort to keep these results secret. That's ok, there are still other lies we can tell in the fields of biology, astronomy, history, and geology that haven't been exposed yet by the real scientists. (Where are they, anyway?)
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, nipples in men, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
....So? You do realize that a podcast is not a scientific source?
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Scientific american is though no ? Shoot the messenger, the poor podcast trying to unveil the conspiracy ahem...
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the podcast is a good source and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals. Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Thyroid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?

Why do males have nipples? Seem pretty vestigial to me.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?
That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...

like when they put the feather dinosaur on display saying they had the fossil (when they had nothing) or when the used to teach "pilt down man" and have fabricated diagrams showing "embryonic recurrence" as proof of evolution, and how they will continue to teach lucy as the oldest "primate ancestor" of humans or whatever fable for years to come even though we now have fossils which show this is patently false...
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
Did you read the last line of the article?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Rafa999 said:
You do know that the coccyx is the remnant of the tail-bone of our primate ancestors?
That's what "They" continue to say in their dishonest textbooks even though they already know for years the truth...
...which is?
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
Look the Journal cited by scientific American cited by the pdocast is a good source
I should imagine so, but you aren't citing it, for some reason. You chose to cite Scientific American.

Rafa999 said:
and the research probably has been corroborated by other Journals.
"Probably" isn't good enough.

Rafa999 said:
Makes perfect sense that the appendix is not vestigial if tons of other species have it and it hasn't gone away yet. It's used to store good bacteria while the surroundings are bad. Just like the Throid secretes hormones to control metabolism, and the pineal is part of the sleep cycle, and so forth, all denied by evolutionists some years ago...
Do you know what "vestigial" means in this context?....
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.
No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
Rufus said:
Rafa999 said:
By the way, the "usless DNA" argument of evolutionists is turning out to be their worst nightmare as scientists are now discovering it's all used :

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/
Oh goodness, junk DNA is functional. My universe is caving in on itself.

So called "vestigial organ" :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24

they used to think the Thyroid, Pineal, Vomeronasal organ, Coccyx, pituitary gland, lachrymal glands, and some 86 structures were vestigial !
Did you read the last line of the article?

Outrageous! Now they claim the Appendix was "evolved" by natural selection!!! Typical junk science, can never be falsified with evidence to the contrary, will always be right no matter the evidence presented.
No, they said it has not disappeared because of natural selection.

They previously said it was about to disappear because of natural selection and claimed that since we are the only ones with one that it was vestigial, now they reversed argument.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.
<citation needed>
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
our DNA is 97% similar to that of Bacteria as well, so what? Propaganda as always from evolutionists.
<citation needed>

Can't find for Bacteria species, but found platypus at least 82% human :

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals

Behold the long lost missing link :




:eek:  :eek:  :eek:
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
So, let me get this straight.  You cite the similar DNA we have with so many creatures, not as evidence that we descended from a common ancestor, but rather to take the, "Gosh! We don't look anything like those creatures!  It must mean nothing!" line of reasoning?  Interesting.
 
Top