thilipsis

You had me till you rejected original sin: Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). There is no one righteous, not even one;there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. (Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20) The New Testament word for repentance isn't a change of behavior, that's the effect. It's a change of attitude at the 'seat of moral reflection': Repent, Repentance: lit., "to perceive afterwards". meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive;" nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection". (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words Strong's #G3340) This requires a change of the inner man, the New Testament is crystal clear on this point. The sinner can repent of nothing apart from an imputation of the divine nature: As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient… For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:1-2, 8-10) Either way this comes down to justification by grace through faith, indeed there is a choice to receive repentance but there is no part of salvation that is our own work. It is not by the force of human will that we repent but by submitting to the will of God. We do that by grace through faith. Grace not only saves us but sanctifies us, apart from Christ we can do nothing and to make myself clear, your merit counts for nothing. If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of themyet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10) A good working definition for grace is 'unmerited favor', Paul worked in the ministry field by grace alone and he is crystal clear on this point. The merits of Christian ministry are Christ's alone we can add nothing. James in speaking to believers who were obviously showing favoritism was simply telling them that this is not how saving faith works. He was outraged that a wealthy Christian could teach a poor Christian as inferior when they themselves apart from Christ are poor, pitiful, blind and naked. We will receive that full recompense of righteousness and be glorified forever based on Christ's merit. That's why total depravity is essential, every part of salvation is a gift of grace. You carnal behavior is your essential nature, it cannot be repaired it must be replaced. Indeed before Christ we are the guy in Romans 7 and we are afterwards. That's why Romans 6 tells us we must be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness because after conversion we have a new nature born of incorruptible seed. Then having received the new nature and the promised Holy Spirit we can walk after the spirit and are the children of God as we see in Romans 8. The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this: Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. Grace and peace, Mark

So God didn't force you to repent? You don't have a sin nature that rebels against God at every turn? All Christian theology accepts the sin nature as the first point of contact with sinful humans and God's holy, righteous nature. That said, your right, I have to accept the indictment that I am a sinner and the revelation that God is holy, righteous and good. Jesus is telling us that we must be born again and the New Testament is clear its by faith. The key to what you said there is whosoever, 'will', that is the enigmatic variable. We do not achieve repentance, anymore then we merit salvation. We receive repentance along with the divine nature that is what being born again is all about.

I would start with the cranial capacity of 340 cc, clearly not in the Hominid range. Then there is the wave after wave of controversy surronding the skull from it's first discovery: "an examination of the casts... will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous. The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape... and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine) To a more convoluted discussion and controversy that rages in more modern times: Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, noted that Dart had not fully considered certain apelike attributes for Taung. "In his 1925 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized". "Like humans, other primates go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". (Taung Child, Wikipedia) That's not so much, l realize that controversy is part of paleontology and there are going to be questions regarding comparative anatomy. It the place in history that the Taung Child represents and the obvious motives to scramble for a viable transitional to replace the Piltdown hoax: The turning point in the acceptance of Dart's analysis of the Taung Child came in 1947, when the prominent British anthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark announced that he supported it. Le Gros Clark, who would also play an important role in exposing the Piltdown fraud in 1953, visited Johannesburg in late 1946 to study Dart's Taung skull and Broom's adult fossils with the intention of proving that they were only apes. But after two weeks of studies and after visiting the caves where Broom had found his fossils – the Taung cave had been destroyed by miners soon after the discovery of the Taung skull – Le Gros Clark became convinced that "Dart and Broom were essentially right in their assessment of the significance of the australopithecines as the probable precursors of more advanced types of [humans]." In early January 1947 at the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory, he was the first anthropologist of such stature to call the Taung Child a "hominid", that is, an early human. An anonymous article published in Nature on 15 February 1947 announced Le Gros Clark's conclusions to a wider public. On that day, Arthur Keith, who had been one of Dart's most virulent critics, composed a letter to the editor of Nature announcing that he supported Le Gros Clark's analysis: "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form [of Australopithecus] was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and the chimpanzee. I am now convinced ... that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong." As Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, "a prompter and more thorough capitulation could hardly be imagined." (Taung Child, Wikipedia) So Le Gros Clark helps to expose the Piltdown hoax and then becomes instrumental in elevating the Taung Child to the status of Hominid. The Piltdown hoax now being exposed they turned to the only alternative they had, the Taung Child, that they were working to dismiss. Then in a dramatic reversal two key people; Keith and Le Gros Clark flip and it wasn't very long before Keith's apprentice, Louis Leaky would publish the 'Latest New From Oldovia Gorge' dismissing the Cerebral Rubicon, the cranial capacity that had previously been the stopping point for inclusion into the genus Homo. The myth of the stone age handyman 'Homo habilis' was born. It would not be so bad if it were not so obvious. Not only is this evident and obvious in paleontology but it's readily apparent in comparative genomics. The inverse logic is intuitively obvious. Special creation remains the alternative explanation and no amount of rationalization can escape that. Let me just be clear for a minute, I want to be fair, I actually admire Leaky and even Charles Darwin. If you buy what they are selling I say go in peace I have no problem with you but I see what looks like blatant misrepresentation here. I would accept a viable causal molecular mechanism for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes if there was any to be had, and adjust my theology accordingly. I would accept legitimate fossil evidence if it presented an open and honest transitional but I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing is bogus ancestors being passed off as hominids and comparative genomics being grossly misrepresented. If it turns out that I'm wrong I will gladly and promptly admit it and have every confidence my Christian convictions will survive intact. What is much more important is we rely on scientists to tell us the truth regarding evidence and adjust their theories accordingly. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing is the evidence distorted. Feel free to prove me wrong and respond as you see fit. Ultimately I have this one confidence, the truth will prevail. Grace and peace, Mark

Navy, back in the 80s, Indiana National Guards during Katrina, deployed to Iraq as a Guardsman and went to Afghanistan with the regular Army. You ask a good question, we know, certainly from the Flood of Noah's day that God hates violence. We also know from Paul that God appoints certain people to be ministers of justice: For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4) Paul under arrest by Rome was under guard by Roman soldiers, when he says those of Caesar's household in this passage he is probably talking about Roman soldiers: All God's people here send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar's household. (Phil. 4:22) We know that Cornelius the Centurion was one of the earliest converts among the Gentiles if not the first. There are other example from Scripture and from Church history, as Christian ministers we are never to take up physical arms but in a secular context military service and law enforcement are sanctioned in Scripture as God ordained governing authorities to bring justice to evil doers and malefactors. On a personal level I believe that there are those who protect others, some serve honorable while others do not. I watched when the Iranians took the embassy in Tehran, when the USSR was a threat to the peace of Europe and the world, when the USS Cole was hit by terrorists and the embassies in Africa were hit and wanted to be one of those who choose to serve in defense of the country. I don't like violence, I really don't, but I understand that some kinds of military and civilian force is not only permissible but are ordained by God as instruments of God's justice. I remember this old guy and his wife used to stand in University Park in Indianapolis with a sign, between the American Legion National Headquarters and the Tyndale National Guard armory with a sign that read, 'No War for any Reason'. Perhaps I'm a little twisted but I took pride in the fact that he lives in a country where he can do that. Grace and peace, Mark

Lets start with total depravity. The parable of the Sower in Luke 8 tells us how salvation works, you hear the word of God (v.11), it might be snatched away because of unbelief. (v.12) falls away when their faith is tested(v. 13) or the weeds of worldly care and the decietfulness of riches chokes out the seed before it matures. Then of course the soil that produces a crop. (v.15) You know what the biggest difference is between the soils? The fourth one was actually cleared, plowed, and weeded. So the question becomes who is doing the farming because I've never heard of a field plowing itself. Ok, total depravity, Catholics believed that the image of God was damaged in the fall but Calvinists insisted it was utterly ruined. The Arminians would come along and say it's damaged horribly but not beyond repair, repentance as an act of free will helped to relieve the fallen condition. Here is my problem and why I'm Calvinist. Take a look at Romans chapters 1, 2, and 3 up to about verse 21, If you think Paul is talking about those sinner back then or over their your wrong. He is talking about that miserable, wretched sinner in you. Dead to sin alive to God (Rom. ch 6), death of the old nature, birth of the New nature (Eph ch 2). Do note I'm picking whole chapters because this is discussed at considerably length both in the New Testament and often in the Old Testament. If you don't realize that your the fool in Proverbs you missed the whole point. Why do you think Solomon starts off with emphasising the fear of the Lord is the key to knowledge and wisdom? Because your not such a bad guy or because sin has train wrecked you? Jesus told his Apostles get up and follow me and they did, but why? Later he says Father they were your and you gave them to me. The light of revelation reaches everyone but not everyone receives it (Rom. 1:18-20; John 1:1-5) The first step to conversion is repentance is conviction over sin, that's how the field gets cleared, plowed and weeded. I have known so many Christians that can't seem to realize they are sinners. Calvinism doesn't let your vanity slip through and wrap itself around your ego. The Gospel is clear, you are helpless with regards to sin and you don't achieve repentance, you receive it like every other aspect of your salvation.

I'm sure this has been addressed repeatedly but I wanted to toss my two cents worth in. Being 'born again' is an expression used throughout the New Testament and embodies the core of the Apostolic witness regarding being part of the body of Christ. You must be born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3,5,7), which is the nature of Christ (1 Jn. 4:7),your born by faith in Christ. (1 Jn. 5:4). John tells us in the opening verses of his Gospel account who have received Christ by faith he gives the right to be the children of God. (John 1:12,13). This is identical to Peter's description of being born of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23) as well as Paul who discusses being marked with the seal of the Spirit by believing the Gospel. (Eph. 1:12) The reason being born again isn't used in connection with believers being called Christians is because they didn't call themselves Christians. The term is only used once in connection with the church in Syrian Antioch. It was there Scripture tells us that believers were first 'called' Christians and it's the only time that word is used in the New Testament. I ran into something like this in a study of Revelations, I keep calling the beast from the sea, the little horn, the white rider ... etc. the antichrist. Someone pointed out to me that he is never called that in the Revelations. John only uses the term in his epistle. Looking a little closer I started to wonder if John's discussion of the antichrist isn't more likely to be the false prophet, aka the beast from the land.

When I was looking into Creationism early on I found an Ansewers in Genesis article on the dating of the lava dome at Mt St Helen's. Steven Austin and some others sent a pulverized sample to a lab in Cambridge MA. They estimated a date from 360,000 to over 2 million years. They have repeated this exercise various places always the results indicate old age and at Mt St Helens it was only ten years old. They are supposed to be able to determine if sample has daughter isotope and estimate the approximate age. Of course you can't do that if all you know about the sample is what it's made of. That kind of dating method has left me cold ever since.

The explanation that chimpanzees were originally semi bipedal makes a lot more sense the an overhaul of highly conservative genes and the de novo orginination of dozens of others. When the Piltdown fraud was uncovered the Taung Child was promoted to human ancestor. An honest assessment of the evidence would at least accept the inverse logic of Darwinian evolution, but they rarely do that: Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial) The cranial capacity was still small, even for a chimpanzee. That being the case the genes mentioned in the OP are probably unchanged at this point and so far there is no explanation how the foramen magnum moved in the first place. Leaky who got the name Homo babilis from Dart was digging up chimpanzee size skulls but couldn't classify them as Homo. So the solution was simple, ignore the cranial capacity. No chimpanzees in the fossil record because they are being passed off as protohuman and no molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of ape. I don't have to lie about anything, you can't make this kind of stuff up. I'm getting it from the actual scientific literature I noticed you have shown no interest in. When it comes to Darwinians watch what they publish, they'll get it right there. That won't stop them from making bogus statements other ways: Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level...But that's rapidly changing. Just a year ago, geneticists announced that they had sequenced a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome, allowing the first side-by-side comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. (Time, What Makes the Difference) What they are talking about is the Chimpanzee Genome paper, published in Nature in 2005. From their announcement on their Web Focus page: What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. (Chimp Genome Web Focus Nature) But the article doesn't indicate 98% the same: Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome...Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage...On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005) That comes to between 95% and 96% with over 70% of the protein coding genes showing one amino acid replacement in each of the respective genomes. Those are not minor differences, I'd say 90 million base pairs due to insertions and deletions is a pretty important thing to consider when comparing the DNA of Chimpanzees and Humans. Don't believe what they say, read what they publish in peer review, they'll get their facts straight there. They would like you to believe it's 98% because they have no explanation for how mutations on this level, some over a million base pairs long can happen without devastating deleterious effects. In one of the areas showing the biggest differences, Human Accelerated Regions they call them, we find HAR1f. In 300 million years it allows only 2 substitutions then 2 mya it gets 18 in a brain related regulatory gene. No explanation how, but one thing is for sure, saying we are 98% the same is grossly inaccurate. Ignore the cranial capacity and the indels, that's how you make an honest assessment of the evidence? Who's kidding who here.

It's always a great pleasure to encounter a fellow creationist who simply explores the subject matter in a civil and straightforward manner. I've seen a lot of them over the years, I've seen them run out of discussion forums to form their own discussion groups. Most Creationists are gentle natured people who are simply curious about how Scripture can be cross referenced with the scientific discoveries of the day. Take your time with this Dave, I promise you, there is nothing in the evidence that is going to contradict the Genesis account of creation. That's why Darwinians and sometimes creationists are so melodramatic about these things. At the end of the day God's glory is reflected in the things that were created and it's not us who confirm the creation account, that responsibility resides with the only one who can tell us when and how life was created. God himself. That's exactly what I'm getting from paleontology, the Taung Child and Lucy are knuckle dragging apes. Think about it, we sent a chimpanzee into outer space, chimpanzees are doing good to use sticks to eat termites or clubs to ward off intruders. The Scientific Revolution was about tools, mental and physical. What you build with them is entirely up to you. The way I think I know the difference between chimpanzees and humans in the fossil record is simply the size and complexity of the human brain. A chimpanzee has a cranial capacity about three times smaller then the human mean average. The genetic basis for an adaptive evolution of the human brain from that of apes is a burden of proof that resides with the Darwinians who have failed miserably to produce an effective cause for such a change. Like I say, take your time and don't let the melodrama discourage you, the truth will prevail. Grace and peace, Mark

Well now that one could take a while but since the issue here is natural history the development of the inductive approach to scientific method seems a likely place to start: I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. (Newton, General Scholium) The obvious example here was the Newtonian theory of gravity, one of the keystones in physics for the development of the principles of motion. If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment- experimentum crucis -were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (Issac Newton, Michael White) While I consider this a tangent that's an hypothesis and how it fits into inductive scientific method. You have other ideas let's hear them. No because that's what the Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism is, it's a unified theory of biology. Call it what you will. It's a brief overview of the development of modern Genetics, here is another one: The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th centurysparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century: The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same. The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2005) Now I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here but I'm talking about comparative genomics as it pertains to human/chimpanzee common ancestry. Yet you have not managed anything other then some scathing ad hominem remarks. I consider this kind of fallacious rhetoric to be an argument that never happened since it pertains to nothing substantive. Then at least you will enjoy a good laugh. I am not passing myself off as a biochemist and over the years I came to realize this isn't all that technical. The essence of the issues are ideological, arguing in circles around the substance of my discussion is your choice. If you want to introduce something biochemical into the mix feel free, until then I really don't see your point. The way I see it, you and I decide to have fresh baked bread and eclairs for lunch. So we go to a local baker and buy them. You might have to be a baker to make them but certainly don't have to be a baker to eat them. Believe me it's been no trouble at all, I've fielded this kind of fallacious reasoning too many times to count. When the poster resorts to ad hominem personal remarks to the exclusion of anything relevant or anything substantive, that's when I know I have them, because they have nothing else. Usually it's a downward spiral but in your case you went right for it, to date, I have never seen anyone recover from the allure of fallacious rhetoric. Perhaps you will be the first. Till then I can dismiss these arguments as dramatic acting, right where it started, in the Darwinian Theater of the Mind. Grace and peace, Mark

Actually the rain forests are in South America but I know what you mean, modern Troglodytes inhabit the savannas while the Bonobos live in the jungles of the Congo. No your not going to get a lot of fossils there. What is curious is that the only fossils they get are in eastern Africa in the Rift Valley, the same area where Louis Leaky found so many hominid fossils especially in Oldovia Gorge. The biggest problem for me is that the Taung Child was considered a chimpanzee for almost half a century and for good reason, now it's considered one of our ancestors even though it looks a whole lot more like a chimpanzee then human. Same problem with Lucy and it comes down to the cranial capacity. When I heard about the Chimpanzee Genome paper my Guard unit had just called us up to respond to Katrina, for two weeks I was wanting to read that article. I finally get my hands on it and as I'm browsing through the magazine that article hits me between the eyes. I'm sorting through all these details, point mutations, indels, gene comparisons and comparisons to the mouse genome (that one is actually more important then you think) and then this brief little new article. I start looking around for chimpanzee ancestors and from the time of the split there are actually none. It makes no sense that there would be so many hominids and no chimpanzee ancestors since both populations would have lived along equatorial Africa till about a million years ago. They wouldn't have been that different, stone age hominids (Homo habilils) are found primarily in central Africa not far from where ancestral chimpanzees would have lived.

Sheol is synonymous with death and the grave. Hell as we know it is virtually unknown in the OT, there's a verses in Danial that describes those raised to ever lasting shame and content but little else. Jesus was the only one who taught about Hell because he was the only one who knew anything.

What are you talking about? I think everyone knows what an hypothesis and a theory is and Darwinism qualifies as a unified theory of biology. I disagree with the naturalistic assumptions its based on but that doesn't make it any less a theory. Its just not a theory of evolution per se, its a theory of natural history. It was developed as a unified theory in What has become known as the Modern Synthesis. For about fifty years Genetics wasn't considered a real science because it could not link the cause (molecular) with the effect (external traits). In effect molecular biology and Genetics couldn't get on the same page until the unveiling of the DNA double helix model. What Crick, Watson and their colleagues were able to determine was how protein coding genes work. What you think that has to do with a chemistry class is a mystery to me since this is basic biology. I got a 'b' in college Biology btw.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said once, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts'. Darwinians want to tell us that Creationism is an argument from incredulity (ignorance), but I don't see any real indication of that. The difference is simply two world views, God creating life about 6000 years ago changes none of the actual facts. Convergent evolution is the explanation, clearly this gene has arisen de novo at least 4 times. There have been a number of papers written about this and they can even tell you where the DNA was taken from and roughly how it was constructed. To date they haven't been able to determine the mechanism responsible but you don't get the option of mutations or viruses, that's for sure. I studied the fossils for years and one of the biggest breakthroughs for me was when I realized there are no chimpanzee fossils in the fossil record. It didn't really dawn on me until the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published in 2005, in the same edition they reported that three maybe four Chimpanzee teeth were found in the Rift Valley. The article says these are the first chimpanzee fossils ever found, that just blew me away. After that it was obvious, every time a chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors. I've noticed a lot of things like that, when the basic strategy they are using is understood the facts fall right into place. Grace and peace, Mark

You kind of have a point here but I think you need to think in terms of the adaptive evolution they are inferring here. Their findings suggest an astonishing 30 percent of all protein adaptations since humans' divergence with chimpanzees have been driven by viruses. (Science News) This is that old black magic they use so well, just like mutations plus beneficial effects this is viruses plus beneficial effects. Just one problem they are assuming an effect from comparisons, not demonstrating them in practical terms. The ERV are said to be responsible for half of the human genome, the basic idea is that they are the result of highly unlikely germ line cell invasions. The thing is, the most researched cellular invasion of retroviruses is HIV and they are responsible for destroying immune systems, not building them up with adaptive selective advantages. Now about the 'theory of evolution', frankly there is no such thing. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon in nature. The so called 'theory of evolution' is a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. This gets a whole lot easier if you can discern between the two. Brother I mean this with all due respect, that kind of thinking will have you running in circles before you know it. Viruses don't drive evolution, protein evolution is a very real adaptive process that fights viral infections. Think about this a minute: When an environmental change occurs, species are able to adapt in response due to mutations in their DNA. Although these mutations occur randomly, by chance some of them make the organism better suited to their new environment. These are known as adaptive mutations. (Viruses are a dominant driver of protein adaptation in mammals) Ok now that's what the article is telling us but it's based solely on comparing genomes. They are suggesting mutations and viruses are the cause but I think we know mutations and viruses a little better then that: Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1998) 'A very few are at least momentarily adaptive', that's what I'd like you to take away from this without getting bogged down in the details. Then there is something else I think is critical to understand here, genetic mutations are not the same thing as adaptive evolution: In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations) When I study the Bible, I follow the Scriptures where they lead me and always check the New Testament witness. When if comes to scientific literature I like to go to the source material and basic scientific definitions. The problem with Darwinism is it can piggy back in on the sciences and pass itself off as scientific. I say, look at what a mutation and a virus actually is and then decide if you think they drive evolution or if they are detriments to living systems. It's not that this is so complicated that keeps my interest, it's the fact that at the end of the day it so very simple. They are simply assuming viruses and mutations with nothing directly observed or demonstrated to support their...guess we could call it...theory. Please don't tell the Darwinians I said this but I have an alternative theory. God purposely created things differently which explains the vast differences in the genomes and provided for adaptive evolution by providing genomes with molecular mechanisms for that purpose. Viruses are dangerous and mutations are a failure of DNA repair. What puzzles me is if living systems have evolved so much then why does the genome provide so many repair mechanisms and have to rely on mutations and viruses for the giant leaps presupposed in Darwinian philosophy? That's just between you and me, don't let the Darwinians know I'm on to them. Grace and peace, Mark

Some interesting points Dave, liked the article. One of the side effects of learning about this sort of thing you start to wonder about real world adaptive evolution. The immune system is a prime example, what is interesting about the article is that they are focusing on protein evolution. Protein coding genes are in triple codons making up the amino acid chain, taken together it's the reading frame. Just wanted to throw in a few anecdotal examples, I'll forego the citation and just wing it from memory for now. There is this arctic cod that has coevolved, at least 4 times, a very special gene that produces an antifreeze gene that produces a protein that keeps them from freezing in the frigid waters of the arctic. It's simple repeats but the gene suggests there is an adaptive mechanism that triggers the development of this gene. For a while the evolutionists were talking about the nylon eating bug, a bacteria that developed the ability to eat nylon. When I looked into it I found that it had basically swapped out a reading frame, again suggesting some kind of a deliberate molecular mechanism, not some random mutation. So you think about immunity and how it adapts, the key adaptive part is when it becomes inheritable. I don't think science has taken us far enough to really comprehend how that happens exactly but you will no doubt find it's not random. Life is not chaotic but orderly, even meticulous. This speaks elegantly for intelligent design and God's divine providence in nature. Our Intelligent Design friends have been detailing this for some time now, from our end we look at known history and a single definitive revelation. It can be summed up with, 'in the beginning God' and we do well to emphasis that point. Discerning between adaptive evolution in real world terms and idle speculations can help to inform our understanding how real world science works and wrestle it away from the Darwinian mythographers. Grace and peace, Mark

First of all even the Pope is entitled to his opinion. I remember he said the Christian thing was build bridges not walls, all I could think was doesn't Vatican City have a wall? Anyway, what he was saying about 'opinion' is probably Aristotelian, the weakest kind of knowledge Aristotle thought was basic belief or opinion. I think he might have missed something, for most Christians reading the Bible is devotional and there are a lot of ways it can speak to you on a personal level. Just because you brought it up, I think global warming is real but I often wonder if the international effort to deal with it is helping.

Hermeneutics is the idea of principles that represent concurrent principles that help to guide our understanding of Scripture. Indeed, a basic exposition and cultural context are key elements but there are principles like Messianic prophecy that run concurrent in the Law, Prophets and especially the Gospel. A couple of the most important being the return of Christ and final judgment remain a concurrent theme. The introduction is a good, practical guide to a normal exposition, identifying what the principles are is often of enormous worth in determining stronger undercurrents. I keep running into this one, especially when looking at Romans or Revelations. The Revelation is especially rich in Hebrew imagery, the appearance of the Son of Man in the opening chapter for instance bears a strange resemblance to the appearance of a Levitical High Priest. Very often the immediate context is telling you what is going on with a specific text. In John 6 when Jesus says I am the bread of life, taken out of context it suggests there is something to be learned about the bread of the Lord's Supper. A closer examination reveals that Jesus is saying the bread you ate, the bread your fathers ate in the dessert will feed you today only to leave you hungry tomorrow. Believe in me and you never have to worry about being hungry again, maybe in this life you'll know want, but I am the bread of life and clearly he is describing eternal life. This is a good one, should go without saying, what is it actually saying. I've seen more people try to 'interpret', their way around the clear meaning. The writer gets to deliver the message, the first order of business is to hear him out. This is where the literary features come in handy. We are all familiar with how in Proverbs there is a tendency to repeat things. It's called parallelism and their are times it's used to show the heart of the emphasis. In Genesis 1:27 the creation of Adam and Eve is repeated three times, this is a literary feature that is repeating a principle to indicate the heart of the emphasis. Dictionaries, lexicons and concordances are invaluable in this regard. Not everything translates word for word, the more you know about the original language the better. That one is tricky, John's Gospel is known to be deeply theological, as opposed to Romans that is more doctrinal. What I keep noticing about John is he spends a lot of time on dialogues, conversations Jesus had with different people, Nicodemus, the Samaritan Woman at the well, the Upper Room Discourse. There's a theological premise there, the key to good theology is how it generates a dialogue between the worshiper and God, not just how it informs the intellect. You might not see it in many books on hermeneutics but sometimes you should simply ask God for understanding. Not exactly a rule but a word of advice here, it works. Grace and peace, Mark

Guess that gets me kicked out of the Young Earth Creationists club because all we know about the age of the universe is that it was created, 'in the beginning'. The creation of life in general and man in particular is another matter entirely.

Yea that one kind of threw me to. There is an unbroken line of relative dates throughout the Old Testament. Kind of liked the rest of the post but that part didn't sound right to me.

I'm not so sure because Communists are not exactly warmed up to the idea of empowering women as far as I can tell. Feminism came from the Women's rights movement and I think it has been a positive thing in a lot of ways. I'm not crazy about a lot of their legal and social activists but very much enjoy some of their more intellectual ideals.

I was thinking about the Thanksgiving Meal Offering in Leviticus today, it's kind of a neat analogy for a Thanksgiving prayer: The grain offering (minhah)consisted of fine flower, baked goods, or grain from the ear (Leviticus 2:4, 5, 7, 14). This was by and large a free will offering someone would make anytime they wanted to show gratitude to God. They must have had a wonderful aroma with flour (grain) and incense and there would have been a lot of them. The scent must have filled the streets of Jerusalem often, especially when the people were required to all be there for special feasts like Pentecost. It's also used symbolically in the Revelation of prayer: Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God's people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. (Rev. 8:3) As I get ready to enjoy a Thanksgiving meal with my daughters and grand children I'm mindful that Thanksgiving is one of the more truly Christian holidays since it is uniquely Christian and set aside just for a time of thanksgiving for the many blessings God bestows. May the prayers of the saints rise up, a sweet savor to the God who in all mercy has bestowed on us so many good things in the person and work of Christ delivered to us in the power of the Holy Spirit according to the good and perfect will of the Father. Grace and peace, Mark

Summary: HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how. SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder. 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee, so is Lucy. Discussion: What follows are from over ten years of study of the comparative studies related to human brain evolution. Comparative Genomics should have ended, or at least challenged, Darwinian evolution by now but it is exalted above all skepticism. The a priori assumption of universal common descent is immutable in modern philosophies of natural history. The reason they are not questioned isn't the weight of the evidence, indicating chimpanzee-human common ancestry, but the animosity toward anything remotely theistic being suggested as a cause: Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Novum Organum) This grand theatrical production has been performing for over a century now, it's history littered with fabrication. Perhaps the longest running demonstration was easily the Piltdown fraud. The Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangutan jawbone. Even Louis Leakey, the famous paleontologist, had said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived. Leakey mentions the Piltdown skull in his book 'Adam's Ancestors': 'If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape.' He referred to the whole affair as an enigma: In By the Evidence he says 'I admit . . . that I was foolish enough never to dream, even for a moment, that the true explanation lay in a deliberate forgery.' (Leakey and Piltdown) The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown, a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leakey that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born. The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity. "Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell) Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors. Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1 Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1 Lucy a Chimpanzee Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014 These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes: The evolutionary time separating human and macaque (20–25 million years) is grossly comparable to that separating rat and mouse (16–23 million years)…214 such genes in all of the four taxa chosen… Increases in brain size and complexity are evident in the evolution of many primate lineages…However, this increase is far more dramatic in the lineage leading to humans than in other primate lineages… accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development, represents a salient genetic correlate to the profound changes in brain size and complexity during primate evolution, (Molecular Evolution of the Human Nervous System. Bruce T. Lahn et al. Cell 2004) That was probably the broadest comparison of brain related genes between apes and humans shortly after the unveiling of the findings of the Human Genome Project in 2001. Since then they have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1). The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012) What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder: 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region… A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum… Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012) The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above) Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene: SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D) In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated: The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006) This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause: The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011) Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith. Darwinian isn't a term Creationists made up, the Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote: Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin) Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions. On the other hand, if you feel Darwinians have made their case and find their arguments convincing I say go in peace I have no problem with you. If on the other hand you are interested in valid skepticism regarding the evolution of the human brain from that of apes there is ample evidence to indicate that Darwinism isn't a conclusion but an, a priori (without prior), assumption that allows for exclusively naturalistic causes. Grace and peace, Mark

I remember as a new Christian I found the Bible to be problematic at best. For me the two biggest issues were the resurrection and the conversion of Paul, I finally got through that and then I encountered the deity of Christ, the Incarnation and the Trinity. Over a considerable amount of time I got those things under my belt and it's been one thing after the other, yet I've always put my confidence eventually in Christian conviction and the Scriptures. For some thirteen years I argued Creationism on Christian Forums both using an evidential approach (scientific literature) and as a Biblical doctrine. Time and again I encountered arguments and evidences that challenged my convictions, at one time I was a border line Theistic Evolutionist but now I'm a strong young earth creationist with some reservations regarding the creation of the universe being 6000 years ago. My fascination with apologetics has left me puzzled as to the reason for such stern skepticism and such emotive animosity for the things of faith. I don't think there is anything new about this: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Cor. 2:14) Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. (James 3:13-16) Chuck Swindoll one time was talking about Paul before a Roman Governor Agrippa. He describes this man's life and let's just say he wasn't exactly a bastion of moral virtue to put it mildly. What brother Swindoll said about that was, 'what do you expect from worldly people'. Apart from a miracle in your life you will never make the insight into who Jesus Christ is and certainly would never be able to enter into a relationship with him through faith. When the first century church was being persecuted they did not retaliate, they did not take matters into their own hands and there is a reason for that. They believed the people who were persecuting them were under a delusion. The believed that the Devil and his forces were somehow deluding these people and instead of hating them and lashing out, they saw them of victims of Satanic forces. No, not everyone who your share your faith with will appreciate you convictions. I've argued Creationism for years and I have been called a fool, a liar and worse, not because of anything I did to them personally but simply because of what I believe. I don't know why they get so vicious in their attacks but at the end of the day we entrust God with our very souls, ultimately we have to trust him to lead us into situations where we can share our faith with those whom God has chosen to be receptive. Grace and peace, Mark

I don't know if the thread is still active but I like the question. I think initially it was because the gospel just made sense. When I accepted Christ I got a response, I wasn't expecting it and it really surprised me. I was always interested in apologetics because like all guys I'm an ameture historian. Asisde from the personal confirmation I can neither prove nor express, the Bible is far and away the best historical record I've ever seen. Notice I didn't say has the best, the Bible is a stand alone primary source. The primary reason I believe is simply the integrity of the source material.