"mdcunning" <mdcunning@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
news:QbudndfNcYmIGN3cRVn-tA@buckeye-express.com:
Creation
In Ten Billion Years the DEAD Statue of Liberty could never
have come into existence unless it was designed and made by man.
In Ten Billion Years a LIVE Man could never
have come into existence unless he was designed and made by God.
Argument from incredulity?
How much more complex is a man than the Statue of Liberty?
Just as the Statue of Liberty could not form by random chance
so too could a man never be called a random act of Nature.
Nature is never really random, though nature contains random components
that defy human prediction.
It is in fact a miracle that one single Man was made by God.
And from Man was made a Woman to be his wife.
And you know this because you were there? Or you have some physical
evidence from the event?
There is great diversity in humans today.
In size and shape, There are Giants and Dwarfs among us.
There are some with Forms many would call accidents.
Extra limbs or heads, or other strange genetic happenings.
This diverse set of rare occurrences is not limited to Man.
Today when we find a strange skeleton today some calling
themselves scientists leap to the faulty conclusion that they
have found proof of a transitional species, as one species
evolved into another.
When we find skeletons in bunches with consistent characteristics we do
tend to decide that they are a species. When they have characteristics
of two divergent groups then we tend to decide that they are quite
possibly the transitional species that the genetics of the living
representatives of those groups tell us must have existed in the past.
With what we know today about DNA, and how just small
errors in DNA can lead to Disease or death; it is faulty
reasoning to think that any massive genetic change could happen
by random chance that would improve the survivability of a species.
That's good, because nobody is suggesting that permanent, adaptive
genetic change arises MERELY from random mutations, but rather from the
accumulation of those mutations that confer some reproductive advantage
on their possessers in their specific habitat.
Even a slow progression of changes in DNA causes loss of
the soundness of structure that protects us from defects and disease.
Huh? I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Do you?
We now know that if close relatives have offspring that the
genetic diversity we had is lost, and errors are more likely to
surface. The flaws that exist in both the male and female are more
This cuts both ways. What are more likely to surface are recessive
genes. Recessive genes are somewhat protected from the effects of
natural selection. Thus genetic diseases that have been lurking in the
family tree for generations can surface if inbreeding occurs. But so
also can beneficial traits. Egyptian royalty thought so highly of the
idea that they married their sisters (as did Abraham according to the
Bible account).
likely to play a dominate role in the offspring. This leads to birth
defects, spontaneous abortions, and a increase in genetic disorders
and lower ability to resist disease.
Not just flaws, but ANY recessive gene. There do tend to be more flawed
recessive genes than dominant because of the shielding effect. But what
is a genetic disorder in one environment can be a benefit in another.
For example an ape with a deformed pelvis, who must walk erect, is at an
advantage in a period when jungle is shrinking and there are open
grasslands to exploit.
In the great epidemics of disease that wipe out huge populations
you will sometimes find a small number of people who are either
immune to a disease or less affected by it.
Almost always.
It is not because they have some genetic defect or mutation that is
protecting them.
Actually, it often provably IS because of some mutation.
It is because they do not have the defect or mutation that those who
are susceptible to it have.
Prove this claim. Show your work.
When God created us in his image, way back in the Garden of Eden we
did not have any genetic flaws that would allow us to age or get ill.
There is no evidence of this. Indeed you argue against it when you claim
that very old fossils have genetic flaws. You need to get your arguments
more consistent with one another. According to this "theory" we ought to
find a whole layer of absolutely perfect humans at the bottom of the
layers in which they are found. And nothing below that at all. No
animals, no plants, no nothing.
After we ate from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil our
DNA was damaged allowing ageing and disease to affect us.(Gen 2:17)
Yet God had to remove us from the Garden of Eden to keep us from
eating of the tree of life that would allow us to live forever.(Gen
3:22)
Typical materialist reification of holy writ!!!
I know God created me in his image (Gen 01:27), and I am not the
descendent of a primate.
If you are not the descendant of a primate, then you are a robot. Common
sense tells us this, since all humans ARE primates. We are certainly not
canids or felids or bears or raccoons but primates.
The Bible tells me so.
Your Bible doesn't. Your precious private intepretation tells you this.
Believe what the King James Version of the Bible says for it is Truth.
Again, circular reasoning. How do you know this? What proof could you
offer a Hindu who thinks that the Bhagavad-gita is better scripture?
It is the inspired Word of God, the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever.
Actually it is not. The 1611 edition was quite different from anything
you probably have on your shelf.
God is real, he Talks to us through his Word, and guides us to
understanding through the Holy Ghost.
God is real. And the Bible does tell us of the experience others had in
seeking Him. But you will never know Him if all you do is misinterpret
an ancient book. All you will know is the bitter fruit of that tree of
knowledge of good and evil that you are so glib (and so ignorant) about.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
.
