one.opinion

I would NOT ride that train. The giant cat is SCARY!!

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Not to debate or change the subject, but from biblical study and the preponderance of biblical evidence as I interpret it, I am persuaded the Earth is older than 6-10 thousand years. There are two opposing sides on this subject also, as you know.

I was raised in a conservative Christian home and this is exactly what I believed. Twelve years of education in biology and the evidence I consistently encountered slowly changed my mind. I will never look down on anyone for holding this personal belief.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I cannot say which view is correct.

In moments of introspective honesty, I cannot say which is correct, either. I try to acknowledge terms like “I believe” and “the evidence supports”, but I probably do slip into language that indicates certainty from time to time.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It is what I know as a secondary issue that does not interfere with the core tenets of our faith.

I agree with you 100% here. As I mentioned, I will never look down on anyone holding a belief in young earth creationism. I know as I grew up, and I know from what my own students have told me, there are many young earth creationists that hold the age of the earth question as one of primary importance, which it is not. I believe strict adherence to the view has led to many young people experiencing a crisis of faith when they do learn about the evidence supporting a much older earth and universe.

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Our DNA is remarkably close percentage-wise to that of other animals. What percent of human gene and DNA change would it take for us not to be fully human as created?

That’s a very difficult question to answer. I can offer a bit of a comparison, though. Depending on the type of measurement used, the chimpanzee and human genomes are 95-98% similar. In one hand, the numbers indicate strong similarity. In the other hand, when considering the size of the genomes (about 3.2 billion base pairs), that 2-5% works out to be a LOT of small changes.

35 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

What part of our cardiovascular system can we live without?

• The heart that pumps blood.
• The lungs.
• The piping veins, arteries, supply, and return.
• The blood itself, oxygen, nourishment, healing, clotting, etc.

We can’t live without any of these parts of the cardiovascular system (including the lungs, which are part of the respiratory system). However, the conclusion that they could not have evolved is a faulty assumption. Are you aware that there are many animals with some form of circulatory system, but without hearts? And millions of species that have hearts, but not blood vessels? Theses simpler versions of circulatory systems show us that it is possible for more complex circulatory systems to have evolved.

47 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

A kind of cat does not produce a kind of dog.

Obviously not. No one believes this happens. But if a certain population of a species remained isolated, changes in that population could eventually become sufficient to prevent reproductive compatibility and become a new species as a result. This actually happened in populations of mice on a small island called Madeira over the last several hundred years. Just imagine what could happen over millions of years.

55 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Clearly living things produce offspring that are the same kind. There is no claim in the Bible that kinds are unchanged, and there is observable evidence to show us that living things do change over time.

1 hour ago, FJK said:

But no examples of what's been observed?

Just speculative opinions about the "fossil record"?

Are you asking for examples of molecular evolution, organismal evolution, or large-scale evolution. If you are looking for examples of large-scale evolution, they occur over millions of years and we’ve been paying attention to evolution about 150 years. It isn’t a reasonable request.

There is a huge difference between evidence-supported conclusion and “speculative opinion” regarding the fossil record.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

After their KIND, not species.

No one knows what a “kind” is in scientific terms, let alone if there are physical barriers in place between them. 

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

That a reptile changes its KIND into an elephant during millions and millions of years.

I understand the hesitancy. It is difficult to imagine changes THAT considerable over even millions of years. The fossil evidence strongly suggests that modern reptiles and modern mammals did indeed share a common ancestor.

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Here's something contrary to the fringe:

In Search of Panspermia | News | Astrobiology (nasa.gov)

Embarrassing for NASA, honestly, but as a member of the scientific community (I’m a biology professor), I promise that panspermia has never been anything other than a fringe idea.

1 hour ago, FJK said:

Evolution generally means new species coming into being from a different species that are no longer members of the/an old species and cannot revert to them or interbreed with them.

Which observations are you referring to?

Evolution is a broad term. That’s why I was specific in my post. I used “molecular evolution” to refer to changes at the DNA level and “organismal evolution” to refer to changes in a species. The mechanisms and outcomes of of these types of evolution can be directly observed. Changes in allele frequencies and changes in phenotype are very commonly observed.

The implications of these types of changes is that, given enough time, large scale changes can occur. The scientific community has known about evolution for roughly 150 years. This is clearly not enough time to directly observe origins of new organisms at higher taxonomic levels. Instead, we have to rely on indirect evidence, like the fossil record. The fossil record also strongly indicates large-scale evolution over periods of millions of years.

26 minutes ago, BibleStudent100 said:

Satan has been very successful in twisting human thinking that we either evolved or have "arrived" here via panspermia.

Molecular and organismal evolution are observable facts. It is not unreasonable to conclude that what has been observed on small scale in a relatively short period of time could result in much larger changes over much larger periods of time. There is evidence supporting this thought. It is also not unreasonable to believe that God has used evolution to bring about His creative intent. Panspermia has only ever been a fringe and unsupported hypothesis.

4 hours ago, FJK said:

Have you considered that it could be both?  That they are related to one another, the same thing really on different but simultaneous planes of our existence?

Yes, I’ve considered it. I just don’t think that’s the best explanation.

50 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

God knew Adam would sin and it fits the "Plan" God had in place.   He was planning on becoming one of us, dying for us, before Genesis 1:1 ever existed.

That still sounds not at all like a perfect creation. This argument is not making a strong case for perfect humanity.

God never called His creation of humanity perfect and now you argue that God’s intent in creation of humans was to lead the Son to a brutal death.

No, this is not convincing at all as a case for the perfect creation of humanity.

56 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

Adam was not deceived like Eve was.   He intentionally ate the forbidden fruit.  But He could have refused and stopped Eve.   So, it was God's intention that he did sin or he would not have.

The case of humanity = perfect creation is getting even worse.

57 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

Where in the Bible does it claim had Adam not sinned he would still would have physically died?

It is inconsistent to claim (without Biblical statement) that humans were created perfect, but then request a specific Biblical claim for a separate idea. There is not a direct Biblical statement that says that Adam would have died without sin. There is however, God directly warning Adam that he would die the day he ate the forbidden fruit and then not physically dying that day. The implication is that the death that was experienced was spiritual. Additionally, we have consistent observation and logic to show us that humans die and no clear reason to assume that humans were ever created to be eternal.

2 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

Had Adam not sinned, he would not have physically died.  He would still be living.  So, he was perfect.

Why do you suppose that God didn’t call His creation of humanity “perfect” if that would have been a better description than “very good”?

Additionally, do you think it possible that a perfect human could sin? That doesn’t sound very perfect to me.

It is certainly possible that the death brought on by sin is spiritual, and not physical. I still believe the conclusion that humanity was not perfect is unwarranted.

21 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

Before Adam sinned, he was perfect.  His mind was perfect.   With his perfect mind, he named everything.   Look what he said about Eve.

The Bible never makes that claim. Where did you come up with that?

24 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

If Evolution was the Process of Creation, Adam, had the mind to detect this.

This speculation is based on an erroneous assumption. God said His creation of humanity was “very good”, not perfect.

22 minutes ago, uncle_mike said:

I believe that You believe Science points to these attributes about God.

Of course I do. I’m pretty sure we all do here.

59 minutes ago, FJK said:

You are talking about an opinion, an XY individual is, by genetic definition, male.

It isn’t just my opinion. If you had a baby born with all female parts, I’ll bet you would call it a female.

37 minutes ago, FJK said:

You're talking about a deformity, a birth defect, due to developmental conditions not a different genetic configuration.

I'm talking about an XY individual being essentially a female.

5 hours ago, FJK said:

There is also the XYY thing, but that doesn't change the fact that the presence of the Y means male and the presence of only the X with no Y means female.

A female can have an extra X and a male can have am extra Y but they are still either male of female according to whether the X is in combination with a Y or not, there are no YY or YYY people.

In most cases, this is true. But there are many cases (in a world of billions of people) when it isn't.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001180.htm

There are VERY few absolute rules in biology.

The human X chromosome contains many genes necessary for sustaining the organism and the Y doesn't. Essentially, the chromosome we associate with "femaleness" is essential and the chromosome we associate with "maleness" isn't. That's worth thinking about.

Males can also have an extra X chromosome. It's pretty fascinating stuff.

I'm chasing a side trail, but it is a fun side trail.

3 hours ago, uncle_mike said:

That means Science has been a tool that Satan has used to deceive Followers of God.   In Biblical comparison, Science, would be as equal to Rebellion.  The same as Witchcraft.

Not at all - science does not point away from God, but illustrates His majesty, creativity, and His power that defies human imagination. After all, science is the study of the physical work of His hands in the form of living things.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

It would be more accurate to claim that the elegant complexity of life (including the DNA code) is a strong indicator that a rational, sentient Designer created life.

100% agree!

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

To my understanding, many youths brought up in Christian homes and churches lose their faith and are brainwashed at institutions of dumber learning, falling for the atheist lie.

That may be your understanding, but it is far from accurate. Far too many conservative Christians have been led to believe that a commitment to a 144 hour creation period roughly 6000 years ago is essential to their faith. When young people grow up with this false test of “correct” faith is contradicted by scientific evidence, it leads to a tragic and unnecessary faith crisis, often with highly regrettable outcomes.

16 minutes ago, other one said:

There are ways of criticism that don't reach the levels of being really tacky.

Ah ok, gotcha. It will be interesting to see your response to the earlier comment suggesting that a poster is either agnostic or atheistic and whether or not that is considered tacky.

19 hours ago, other one said:

So you feel privileged enough to personally put him/her down in a rather tacky way.   I didn't think we were supposed to do that here.

Is criticism of bad argument no longer allowed here? I missed any personal insults that were present in the post.

Hi @just_abc, good to see you, too. I needed to take a step back for a while from Worthy, but thought I would pop in for a bit the other day.

I traced back through a few of the related links and this is apparently the big concern that was expressed in the linked article.

The US Department of Health and Human Services’ COVID-19 Public Education Campaign states they employed “both paid advertising and media interviews, presentations, radio/TV tours, and other public events to educate people about the importance of vaccination

This is obviously not a bad thing or a new thing. Some of the stories from the Worthy News bot are just plain silly.

Honestly, a very high percentage of people have either been vaccinated or infected. While COVID vaccination is still helpful, it is not as critical now as it was in 2021. I haven't had a booster in over a year, but will probably get one later this month.

I think those are called "commercials".

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

Jesus put the bar pretty low for sin, including just thinking about it. It's about the heart.  Of course, this is why we all need the savior Jesus. 

Matthew 5: 27-28 (NLT) 27 “You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Yes, clearly true. However, I would suggest that lustful thinking is sin regardless if it is homosexual or heterosexual. So again, I would hesitate to judge an entire campus of revival by one celibate person with same sex attraction. I would be much more interested in the stories if changed lives six months or a year later, but it is unlikely those stories will receive any attention.

I read a Twitter thread by someone that did a deeeeeeep dive into the study. It was interesting.

These issues are certainly debatable. It is quite possible that the young man is same-sex attracted and not ashamed of it. I agree with @teddyv that same-sex attraction is not inherently sinful, but I believe acting upon those attractions is. If he is indeed not sinning, but calling himself a "gay Christian", could it not mean that he simply accepts his same-sex attraction?

Maybe it is reasonable and in-line with scriptural teaching to let God be the judge of this person.

James 4:11-12

Matthew 7:1-5