Evolution and the origin of life.

[ollkiller]

One theory i heard that might explain it all. There are loads of universes. Two of these universes collided and created our universe. Sounds as plausible as anything else i've heard. Can i prove it. No. Why. I wasn't there. I'm just glad whatever started it all worked the way it did.

[Sir Gareth]

IL, i have just a couple more question for you, do you believe that Jesus was in fact born of a virgin?

Do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead?

[MorningGlory]

For instance, if Jesus was born "of a virgin" then if we hypothetically compared his DNA to Joseph's there shouldn't be a paternal biological relationship.

What do you mean 'if'? Compare His DNA to Joseph's hypothetically? Did I hit my head on the way to the internet today? What?

[Rick-Parker]

That's a "yes" or "no" answer to these 2 questions. What say you?

[Sir Gareth]

It does confuse me a little lurker, when you try so hard to push evolution, which goes against the bible but you are ok with the idea ofa virgin birth and a ressurection from the dead.

As for evidence, I see alot of evidence, historical and some scientific, which supports-either explicitly or implictly, many of the accounts in Genesis.

I suppose the final question I would ask is this: why do you care if anyone accepts evolution or not?

[Gareth88]

i have just finished the lost world of genisis one and it really made alot of sense to me. These questions about evolution used to worry me but i beleive the whatever happened however it happened and whenever it happened god was behind it

[Gareth88]

i would like to hear other peoples opinions about this book "The Lost World of Genisis One"

[Rick-Parker]

That's a "yes" or "no" answer to these 2 questions. What say you?

The first word in my reply was "Yes". Don't hurt yourself connecting those dots.

You did not answer the question. You said "yes, miracles can occur." How is that a confession of faith? The dots do not connect, except maybe to spell out "evade the question."

Do you believe that Jesus was in fact born of a virgin? Yes or no?

Do you believe Jesus was raised from the dead? Yes or no?

[Sir Gareth]

Lurker,

you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it is only attested to in the bible and there is no extra-biblical evidence-this one would admittadly be very hard for anyone to prove or disprove- so if you do believe this miracle despite the fact that it is impossible-without taking God into account that is-why do you not believe it is even possible for the Biblical creation story to be true? I'm not saying you have to 100% believe it, but don't you think that-if we take God into account-that genesis could be seen as quite literal?

[~candice~]

Lurker,

you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it is only attested to in the bible and there is no extra-biblical evidence-this one would admittadly be very hard for anyone to prove or disprove- so if you do believe this miracle despite the fact that it is impossible-without taking God into account that is-why do you not believe it is even possible for the Biblical creation story to be true? I'm not saying you have to 100% believe it, but don't you think that-if we take God into account-that genesis could be seen as quite literal?

I think God can intervene supernaturally in His creation, sometimes obviously that intervention leaves clear evidence behind and sometimes it does not simply due to the nature of the intervention itself. What should not happen if God is a god of truth is for this intervention to leave clear evidence behind indicating that it did NOT happen. I don't have a problem believing in miracles, I have a problem believing in miraculous explanations for things where clear evidence indicates otherwise. The evidence for an old earth and for evolution is overwhelming and spans vast swaths of physics, biology, archeology, chemistry, and paleontology. The only plausible explanations available are that reality is reliable or that God created an unreliable record of the universe's history that is intentionally deceptive. We have changed our interpretations of biblical teachings about the universe before based on science, prior to Copernicus the overwhelming view of scripture was that it taught geocentrism, following the irrefutable evidence that accumulated for heliocentrism we've since reconsidered our interpretations of passages that indicate a stationary earth. The acknowledgment of an old earth and of evolution is no different; acceptance of methodological naturalism in some areas does not equal acceptance of philosophical naturalism in all areas.

Lurker

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how your interpretation of Gen 1-11, which is didactic and hence allows for evolution, does not introduce contradictions in latter passages such as the geneologies and references to Adam, Noah, and the flood (for example).

Blessings

Andy