Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Did you say that the ONLY reason God gave them CREATIONISM instead of evolutionism is that they were too stupid to be told the truth about evolution? (You know, those advanced ideas like "Extermination, disease, extinction, predation and survival" being far too complex for those stupid Bible people?)

Originally posted by Mercury:

No, I did not. ...

I haven't argued that the Bible hides the truth of evolution while giving us false ideas of creationism:

I don't believe Genesis 1 is about either!

So in Genesis 1-2:3 we "do NOT find an account of ORIGINS"?????

So then you are wrong when you say...

CLICK HERE

quote:
_________________________________________
Originally posted by Gup20:
For example, the word YOM used for 'day' in the days of creation can literally mean 1 day... or it can mean a period of time, or an age of time. Literally, it can mean several things. However, in every situation where yom is paired with a the word 'evening' it means a ~24 hour day.
________________________________________
quote:
________________________________________
Mercury said
I certainly believe that the days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days.

I reject the day-age view for this very reason. In the context of the account the days are solar days, much the same way that when Jesus taught about the one sheep who went astray from the 99, he was talking about real sheep. There's no way to tell by looking at the word yom (or the Greek word for "sheep") that it is being used symbolically.

...


So, I view the creation of the earth and its surroundings described in Genesis 1 as being an example of God's condescension. He revealed what we were not capable of fathoming by putting it in story form (perhaps even in a form quite familiar to the original audience, if other creation accounts were around before Genesis). The structure of the story not only explains how every aspect of our universe came from the one true God, but it also sets the pattern for our own lives by outlining six days of work and one day of rest.[/b]

Here you ADMIT this is the account of the creation of earth and its life forms - but at the top you deny that it is the account for origins and claim God is NOT teaching Creation in the Creation ACCOUNT!!

How fantastically wrong.

In this case "the inconvenient facts" seem to have swallowed up your "story".

In Christ,

Bob

[ August 28, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of the Gen 1-2:3 text where we find "IN the beiginning God CREATED"..

And "And God said... and God MADE ... and evening and morning where the 5th day" etc

Mecury contradicts the text as follows in order to defend evolutionsm...

Mercury said
Creationism isn't what is taught in the text

As astounding as that is - Mercury you seem to be clinging to darkness on this one. What a direct contradiction of the clear text.

Mercury said -
Scripture contains creationism only in the same way it contains geocentrism (the idea that the earth is stationary

In scripture - the CORE point of Gen 1-2:3 is that GOD is MAKING EACH element AS described in the TIMELINE that GOD gives. Do we believe Him? (I guess some of us do).

Mercury seeks to equivocate BETWEEN core teachings where the VERY POINT is the creative Act of God AS He describes and -- vs some other obscure reference - that he is apparently not willing to subject to exegesis.

Mercury said --

I am also baffled at why you are offended by the idea that God condescends to us. Over and over again you harp on the fact that I think God thought we were "too stupid" (your phrase, not mine) to hear all the details about creation.

Ok here is the "simple point" repeated again. Please respond to the point that is opposing you instead of trying to "Spin it into something else".

(On the other hand -- IF you are just trying to offer opportunity after opportunity for me to post the point that opposes your views - I am happy to be of service.)

#1. Evoutionists claim God is NOT teaching evolutionism when HE teaches ORIGINS. YET you believe evolutionism IS THE truth about origins.

#2. WE ALL know that evolutionism's myths simply appeal to the EASY concepts of disease, starvation, predation, carnage, extinction and survival ALREADY well known to the peoples of Bible times.

#3. YOUR claim that God is condenscending in NOT telling them the TRUTH about origins combined with YOUR confessoin that God is NOT teaching them evolutionsms and YOUR confession that God IS teaching them the creaetion story with LITERAL days eliminates all doubt and leaves no doubt that it is creationism.

You know "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" - as God says it.

#4. So when you ADMIT that this is NOT evolutionism and IS real literal DAYS in God's 7 day creation week - it is "obvious" that you think He "condescended" to tell them the Gen 1 "Story" INSTEAD of the TRUTH of evolutionism.

#5. HOW then can you bash creationists who are reading the VERY STORY that you say is NOT evolutionism as they say "THIS is NOT evolutionism"???

How can you blame them for saying that it is what you already ADMIT that it is ...

You know "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" - as God says it.

Instead of dealing with this point - you simply obfuscate as in ...

Mercury

Do you really think your intelligence is equal to God's? Really, Bob, I can't understand why you chafe at this. We should be glad that God condescends in revealing himself to us!
...
Some day, the image will become clear; for now, I know enough to have faith in the One who knows all.

That is not the point. The problem for you view is that once you admit that the origins account God gives - uses literal days and DOES NOT teach evolutionism... you have lost all grounds for bashing creationists who say "God is using real days and is not teaching evolutionism in His ORIGINS account " -- you know -- "creationism".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Mercury]

Bob, creationism is far more than believing that Genesis 1 contains an account of six days of creation. Creationism is about micro-evolution and no animal death before the fall and a vapour canopy prior to the flood and a number of other things that creationists postulate to explain their literal interpretation. Creationism is about changing the order of Genesis 2 events to line them up with Genesis 1, or adjusting the Genesis 2 events so they are re-creations of certain types of life that already exist elsewhere in the world. That is what makes creationism, and that is not what the text teaches.

What I have said consistently is that the days of Genesis 1 are literal within the framework of the account the same way sheep are literal within the framework of Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. Within the parable, it is real sheep Jesus is talking about, but outside of the parable these sheep represent people. As for the days, I think Hebrews 4 shows conclusively that the God's rest on the seventh day after creation is far more than a 24-hour time period that ended about 6,000 years ago.

#5. HOW then can you bash creationists who are reading the VERY STORY that you say is NOT evolutionism as they say "THIS is NOT evolutionism"???

Bob, I haven't bashed your view. I haven't ridiculed it as you've ridiculed mine. Instead I've tried to get you to clarify it (remember all the times I asked you to state when you believe the stars were created?), and when I thought I understood it, I explained from Scripture why I disagree with it. Whenever I've stated your view, I've tried to do so accurately instead of making a caricature of it.

 

[Mercury]

Oops, I should have said the parable of the lost sheep. The sheep and the goats from Matthew 25 is a simile, not a parable; I had it on my mind from another thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Mercury:
Bob, creationism is far more than believing that Genesis 1 contains an account of six days of creation.

I wish I could help you there, but in fact once we accept the EACH of those "evenings and mornings" in the 7 day sequence in Gen 1-2:3 is in fact 1 DAY ( you know, "the obvious") and we also admit that God is NOT teaching "evolutionism" (as you have already admited)... THEN when We read God's own summary of that 7 day week in the words we all know so well "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM Exodus 20:8-11" - (as God says it), then creation - origins and the Creator's account of creation does in fact lead us to the obvious conclusion "creationism".

Mercury --
Creationism is about micro-evolution and no animal death before the fall

Micro-evolution -- (as in variation WITHIN kinds) "yes" for the text SAYS "after its kind" speaking of the offspring of each kind.

But... that is IN the text, so "no problem".

No death -- As we see in Romans 8 - futility, and death IN CREATION were a result of the fall. DEATH spread to all as a result of the fall -

So - just believing the Gospel writers tell us that God did not use the methods of evil - of sin - of rebellion (disease, predation, carnage, extinction, violent deaths) as God's "way of saying LET THERE be birds)

And as you already admit - Gen 1 does NOT teach that this death and carnage process SEEN EVERY DAY by peoples of Bible times - was the process God used CREATION.

In your comments below you conveniently "leave the Gen 1-2:3 text" and the problems it causes you when you accept evolutionism - and you focus instead on the "solutions" that creationists have come up with to answer questions outside of the text.

Interesting - but just guesswork.

Mercury
and a vapour canopy prior to the flood and a number of other things that creationists postulate to explain their literal interpretation. Creationism is about changing the order of Genesis 2 events to line them up with Genesis 1, or adjusting the Genesis 2 events so they are re-creations of certain types of life that already exist elsewhere in the world. That is what makes creationism, and that is not what the text teaches.

You are simply obfuscating in an effort to avoid the point raised.

The point remains - your own position requires that you not attack the Creationists for SEEING creation in the very text that you admit is NOT teaching evolutionism AND IS teaching an ORIGINS account in a literal 7 day week.

In fact -- adding your sidetrack point above to this that you have already admitted to -- the BEST you could do is to say "YES the text IS teaching creationism and NOT evolutionism BUT regarding the water canopy solution -- I think there is an even BETTER physical mechanism that would explain the paradise conditions God describes and the dew that waters the entire earth without using rain"

However this is NOT how you frame your argument. Amazingly and self-conflictingly you argue BOTH sides against the middle. You argue that Creationists are WRONG to accept the Creation account AS Creation WHILE at the same time claiming that it IS a literal 7 day sequence for origins and IS NOT evolutionism, AND that this non-evolution literal 7 day sequence is God condescending NOT to teach the facts of evolutionism.

Basically you are trying to have it both ways - and it is not working.

Mercury
What I have said consistently is that the days of Genesis 1 are literal within the framework of the account the same way sheep are literal

Indeed.

AND that this it NOT evolutionism (any more than it is electromagnetism).

AND that God is using the literal 7 day week SEQUENCE for ORIGINS (something that is NEVER used as a symbol or type for evolutionism BY evolutionists) -- as a condescension - NOT telling the truth which you claim is evolutionism.

Gen 1-2:3 is neither parable NOR symbol FOR EVOLUTIONISM. NO atheist evolutionist today describes evolutionism in those terms sayin in summary "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM Exodus 20:8-11" - as God says it.

Just stating the obvious - that this is obviously "creationism" - the very thing evolutionists reject and that Bible believing Christian creationists promote.

Mercury

Within the parable, it is real sheep Jesus is talking about, but outside of the parable these sheep represent people.

This "again" is failure.

#1. Jesus is NOT talking about REAL sheep in His REAL sheepfold AND all readily admit that NONE of His hearers TOOK it that way.

#2. Jesus is NOT making a Gospel point that REQUIRES you to see people as REAL sheep or to believe that instead of a carpenter - He was a shepherd of sheep - not people.

#3. In Gen 1-2:3 (and in Exodus 20:8-11) God DOES require that we REALLY accept Him as the REAL creator REALLY creating all life on earth, REALLY speaking and then having creation REALLY happen.

#4. In Exodus 20:8-11 God NEEDS THE reader to REALLY accept that there are REALLY 7 REAL days in a REAL week. And the way He PROVES it is by using the REAL week of Creation.

In other words, the VERY DETAILS that you would have us MOST distrust -- are the VERY details upon which God's law demands a literal acceptance to get to the Creator's day of rest, and 7 day weekly cycle.

Christ said in Mark 2:27 that the day was "MADE FOR MANKIND".

In Isaiah 66 in the new heavens and the new earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

God is placing a lot of weight on REALLY believing that the REAL 7 days of Creation are REAL.

#5. HOW then can you bash creationists who are reading the VERY STORY that you say is NOT evolutionism as they say "THIS is NOT evolutionism"???

Mercury
Bob, I haven't bashed your view. I haven't ridiculed it as you've ridiculed mine.

You have claimed that the account is symbolic and a parable meant to teach the truth about origins - the truth that you claim is evolutionism.

But at the same time you confess that this is NOT teaching evolutionism and is "something else" other than evolutionism given in condescention because the saints could not be told that "truth".

And when pressed on the point you admit that this "other account of origins" is in fact comprised of a literal 7 day week.

The VERY thing creationists maintain.

Mercuy --
I asked you to state when you believe the stars were created?)

Indeed you did. The Bible says that on the 4th day God created TWO great lights in the heavens.

You insist that I must reject that Bible truth - and I must think that God created ZILLIONS of lights ON the fourth day.

The Bible says that God created the stars but does not say that they were created ON the fourth day. It merely notes that He is the creator of the stars when addressing the day when He created the TWO great lights.

You insist that I ingore that point and pretend that the Bible really says "AND on the Fourth Day God says let there be stars in the sky and behold God made zillions of lights"

I have never been able to insert the views you seem to want to find for the 4th day into the text, and you seem to object to that fact.

However it does not lessen your problem with admitting that the sequence is a real 7 day sequence (and would have been read as such by Moses' readers) combined with the fact that you already admit that this is NOT an origins account that is teaching evolutionism.

Your problem remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gup20]

Bob, creationism is far more than believing that Genesis 1 contains an account of six days of creation. Creationism is about micro-evolution and no animal death before the fall and a vapour canopy prior to the flood and a number of other things that creationists postulate to explain their literal interpretation.

This statement only demonstrates you don't really understand creationism, or that you are more willing to hear about creation from evolutionists (who understand it even less) rather than from Christians.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BobRyan, I am amazed at your ability to twist scripture to mean what you want it to mean and yet insist you want it to be literal! Because your repeat the assertion that the stars were not made on the fourth day. And yet the scripture narrative asserts:

Gen 1:14-18
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
NASU

It is quite apparent that these are all placed here in the narrative to indicate they were literally linked into the one particular day of creation; your denials, based on who knows what imperatives, notwithstanding. Bear in mind that in the Hebrew Original there is nothing but capitalization, there are no commas, there are no periods, these things are inherently absent from the nature of the language itself; and therefore the artificial separating of concepts that comes into your mind from reading the passage is simply due to the translation that chose to put these little things in as required for proper English.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here again we see the verses that the literalists such as BobRyan will never interpret literally. They will protest that they don't need to do that. Sometimes they will present the fogscreen of Einstein's Relativity Theory, unwilling of course to accept Einstein as any kind of authority as to what the universe is like! Sometimes they will present the fogscreen of "informal usage", completely ignoring the documented history that everybody on earth believed the earth held still and the sun went up and down until science showed otherwise. They will simply fail, however, to do the one thing they claim everybody should always do, and that is to interpret these verses literally.

Gen 19:23
The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.

Deut 24:15
You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.

These are but a sample verses, representing verse after verse where the scripture asserts the sun rose, rises, had risen, over and over. There are very many of them. They are all understood to the readers of their times as literally true; nobody had any inkling, in the dawn of our race, that the solid earth under our feet could actually be a rotating sphere!

Josh 10:12-13
2 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Right there is the very passage that Martin Luther quoted as proof, absolutely, the the teachings of Copernicus were false and to be condemned. BobRyan himself could not be more absolutely convinced of the rightness of his reasoning; and Martin Luther was much more learned than BobRyan. Moreover, we even know that Martin Luther was used of God to spread forth the good news that the Just shall live by Faith. Nobody denies that in this board, I trust. Yet even as God used him, guiding him, Martin Luther was allowed by God to make this mistake; for mistake it is, as the judgement of history has shown.

And what led Copernicus to set forth his history making assertion? Why it was merely the evidence, rightly assessed; what a feeble thing to show in the place of scripture! But evidence has triumphed over scripture in all our minds in this board, for I know of none of us who hold that the Sun goes home to her appointed place at the end of the day, literally, that is.

Ps 19:4-6
In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
And its circuit to the other end of them;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The psalmist would teach us the sun has a place to go to at the end of the day and a place it comes from in the morning. Again, we see the sun as starting "low" and "rising". There is no question what the literal words mean; and there is no question about how men understood them, literally, until modern science showed us the real truth about the Sun.

Ps 104:19-20
The sun knows the place of its setting.
20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night,
NASU

Again we have a reference to the sun having a "place". Let me remind the readers of the literal truth. The Sun simply drifts in space, indifferent to the little earth that circles it, immune to whatever goes on in our world, having no inkling of going somewhere during our night and coming back out during our day; it simply shines and shines, and from the vantage point of the Sun, there is nothing but a lighted side of the earth to see at all times.

Matt 5:45
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

From time to time BobRyan will quote the words of Jesus to cast his own interpretation into those words; and so why not let him wrestle with the literal interpretation of what Jesus said here. Did not Jesus literally say the sun rises, right here? Where is Our Lord's instruction to us that it is actually the earth that rotates?

So here again, as always, we who accept the findings of more recent science from the time of Copernicus find that we are under the same attack from the same misguided literalism that drove Martin Luther in his day. And once again, we do not doubt that many of those who protest against the sciences of astronomy, geology, biology, and so forth, are often used of God in other ways to advance His kingdom.

But in His wisdom, God has shown he will allow even the most faithful of servants to make terrible and counterproductive mistakes in judgement. None of us can claim to be wiser or more faithful or more learned than Martin Luther. All of us could learn from the evidence, if we will face it impartially.

Martin Luther believed he could avoid all error by clinging to his own literal minded interpretation of scripture.

Copernicus, Gallileo, et. al. struggled to bring the light of scientific truth to us all based on the evidence. They paid a price for being true to the truth even as we know that Christian martyrs have paid for being true to another truth.

History is repeated again in our times, in this very forum, in this very thread.

Don't you just know that water is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen? And the ancients believe Water was a basic element. Can you make yourself give up that knowledge? Do you want everybody else to go back to the old view of the elements being earth, air, fire and water? Of course not! Why, one might as well ask you to believe the earth does not rotate!

In the same way, many of us have come to just know all the way down to the roots of our brain fibers that We have today overwhelming evidence, evidence of a kind and quality far beyond anything available to Copernicus for his theory, that the universe is aged in the billions of years and all life is of common descent.

 

[A_Christian]

Paul:

What is literal. The Bible does not lie. If the sun remains at a fixed point in the sky, what difference does it make to suggest that the earth stopped spinning and the solar system stopped moving and the sun stopped spinning and the entire universe came to a sudden halt. The Scripture is about mans relationship with GOD and his need of salvation.

GOD isn't going to spell out every detail to suit your vanity, but what GOD says is understandable. The Sun didn't set until GOD allowed it to. Animals didn't die until Adam sinned. It didn't rain on the earth until GOD allowed the FLOOD to happen. You don't see these facts because you are
trapped by your conformity to the things of this world order. Satan presently is in control of that. Unless you are willing to trust GOD you are going to cling to what only science allows you to see. God wants you to see so much more.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK A_Christian, perhaps you misunderstand my position. I agree completely that, as a matter of practical reality, we can automatically reinterpret the scriptures speaking of the sun rising and setting, based on our greater current knowledge.

I am merely saying it is inconsistent to do that and refuse to take the same interpretive actions regarding other, more recent scientific discoveries. Therefore I stress the literal teaching of scripture, which I also read and disregard concerning the rising and setting of the sun, along with everybody else, not to advocate we must interpret those passages literally, but to free us from the need to be slaves to the literal interpreation of scientifically outmoded passages.

As you say, the scripture is about man's relationship with God and his need for salvation.

As Gallileo himself observed, the scriptures are about how to go to heaven, and were not given to us as a manual on how the heavens go.

Evidence matters. It is a mistake to adopt an orthodoxy that is contrary to the overwhelming evidence.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OK A_Christian, perhaps you misunderstand my position. I agree completely that, as a matter of practical reality, we can automatically reinterpret the scriptures speaking of the sun rising and setting, based on our greater current knowledge.

I am merely saying it is inconsistent to do that and refuse to take the same interpretive actions regarding other, more recent scientific discoveries. Therefore I stress the literal teaching of scripture, which I also read and disregard concerning the rising and setting of the sun, along with everybody else, not to advocate we must interpret those passages literally, but to free us from the need to be slaves to the literal interpreation of scientifically outmoded passages.

As you say, the scripture is about man's relationship with God and his need for salvation.

As Gallileo himself observed, the scriptures are about how to go to heaven, and were not given to us as a manual on how the heavens go.

Evidence matters. It is a mistake to adopt an orthodoxy that is contrary to the overwhelming evidence.

The problem is that you don't believe that there was a battle and that the sun was prevented from setting. The problem is that you don't believe that there was an Adam and an Eve. The problem is you don't believe that there was a Flood.

I wonder if you have heard anything from the evolution scientific group about the following:

htto://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/doc/v14n3_dino.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

AIG says they cannot find the page. What was it about? This is not their little ruse about "dino blood" is it? If it is, you know that what the actual scientific paper says is that well preserved bones were found that had heme compounds in it. Not fresh bone with blood.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

A_Christian, you are guilty of making up stuff about what I believe.

I believe there was a battle. I believe the sun was prevented from setting. I believe there was an Adam and an Eve. I believe there was a flood.

Now would you kindly climb down from your high horse and address the actual issues. How do you reconcile your unwillingness to allow non-literal interpretation of scripture that opposes more recent science such as evolution and the age of the universe with your willingness to allow non-literal interpretation of older science such as the fact that the rotation of the earth is the literal explanation for day and night instead of the sun rising?

I suspect its because you understand the older science and don't understand the newer, thats all, and I further suspect you are conditioned against any true understanding of the sciences by your pre-conceived religious conditioning, instead of actually having a logical, reasoned approach. But hey, prove me wrong!

Your case is undermined, of course, since we observed you are prone to jump to false accusations in defense of your assumptions.

 

[A_Christian]

Paul of Eugene:

Do you believe that man shares a common ancestor with apes? Yes or no.

Sorry, the address above has a typo....
Try the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v4n3_dino.asp

Then go to the search block and type: Fresh dinosaur bones found

 

[UTEOTW]

It still does not work. But you gave me enough to know you are talking about their claims of finding fresh dino bones. The story just is not true. They found very well preserved dinosaur bones. The AIG author uses some claims from journalists to advance his claim, but the actual scientific papers make it clear that well preserved bones that had some trace heme compounds included were found. I recently addressed this claim here. If you follow the link there is another link to one of the actual scientific abstracts. A working link to the AIG article is also there.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000037

You asked Paul but I'll answer. Yes, humans share a common ancestor with the other apes. Do you want to discuss how we know this?

 

[A_Christian]

Well see. The Bible is very clear that humans are a UNIQUE creation. Everything the Bible says indicates that man was created alittle lower than the angels. Adam was formed independently of all the other creatures directly from the dust and was GOD breathed. This is totally contrary to everything evolution has to offer on this matter.

I believe that there were ape like creatures created from man's enjoyment and perhaps for man to lord over; however, these are totally separated from man in terms of lineage. Now, since it is likely that ALL the animals were in some way made from the dust, I can imagine that we all share simularities. Dust is dust; however, man isn't moving upward----he is not even holding his own.
God is allowing man to survive by providing the tools.

 

[UTEOTW]

But there are similarities between the humans and other apes that are best explained only through common descent.

One of the most classic of these is the vitamin C mutation. Most animals make vitamin C through the use of four specific enzymes. In humans, the other apes, and the primates, one of these enzymes does not work. In fact, all of these various animals share a very specific mutation that prevent the enzyme from forming correctly. It is inconceivable that all the different "kinds" of apes, primates and humans would have the exact same mutation while no other animals have it.

There are other such pseudogenes, this is just the best example.

Sometimes a virus can insert a bit of its DNA into the genome of its host. If this cell happens to be a germ line cell, it is possible for this insertion to get passed on to the animals decendents. Humans and the other apes share several of these retroviral insertions right down to the exact same viral sequence. It is inconceivable that all the various ape "kinds" would have been infected with the same series of viruses, that they would have all managed to insert the same sequence of DNA into all the "kinds" and that all of these specific sequences would then have been spread to all members of the populations.

There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. They serve us no purpose except to tie us to our four legged ancestors.

Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. We have no use for it and it has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.

There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans it has no function and is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery.

There is also that series of ancestors going back through Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, and Homo rudolfensis. You also have to find a place to put Homo neanderthalensis. DNA testing has shown that this is not a modern human. That agrees with the physical evidence. So what were they? While you are coming up with an answer for that, tell which of the other species listed above, and add Homo erectus to the list, were humans, which were non-human apes, and why.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Paul of Eugene:

Do you believe that man shares a common ancestor with apes? Yes or no.

Sorry, the address above has a typo....
Try the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v4n3_dino.asp

Then go to the search block and type: Fresh dinosaur bones found

I accept the scientific finding of common descent of all life, and since we don't have tails (only the vestige of a tail in our skeletons) we are therefore classified with the apes.

It is not in our bodies that we have that which no other animal has. It is in our souls. It is in our brains.

Scripture teaches us that God formed us from the dust of the earth. I take this as being symbolic of the age long evolutionary course it took to bring about our readiness for His next creative act, which was - to breath into us the breath of His life, and we became living souls.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

A challenge, in the spirit of this thread, for the creationists.

First, let me explain that I am willing to accept the non-literal interpretation of the Bible when it states that the Sun moves across the sky, and not think a thing of it, or worry about it as a contradiction, because I'm sure God is not at all worried over my taking it non literally. God is not worried about me taking it non-literally, I realize, because my scientific education tells me that, in fact, it is not literally true; rather, day and night are really caused by the rotation of the earth.

OK here is the challenge. Do any of you have any reasoning for taking the scriptures in non-literal fashion when they talk about the Sun rising, setting, having a place to go to at night, stopping for Joshua, etc. other than your scientific knowledge that it just can't be literally true?

If you do, and if it is credible, you will go a long way toward undermining the main point of this thread! Surely a worthy goal for anyone seeking the literal interpretation of Genesis as opposed to modern science!

 

[A_Christian]

Do you believe that Jesus Christ will catch away the Church? Do you believe that Satan will be in bondage for 1000 years? Do you believe that GOD will create a New Heaven and a New Earth? Do you believe that eternal damnation is a reality? Do you believe Jesus Christ was God in human form?