Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[FreeGrace]

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

FreeGrace said: 

Nor did I say it was.  I said it was a Greek word and used by Jesus in Mark 10:6.  But the key is how that word was understood by Jesus in the 1st Century.  I gave what my Greek lexicon said about the word.  Which fits the restoration story.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Well, first of all, Yeeshuwa` wouldn't have used ANY Greek word. He would have spoken Hebrew or Aramaic, a Syrian dialect of Hebrew.

Are you saying all His quotes in the gospels are not in Greek?  

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Second, here's the Greek TRANSLATION of what He said:

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 10:6 (Scrivener's TR 1894)

6 ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός.

Transliterated, this is ...

KATA MARKON 10:6

6 Apo de archees ktiseoos, arsen kai theelu epoieesen autous ho Theos.

Translated word-for-word, this is ....

ACCORDING-TO MARK [John MARK] 10:6

6 Away-from, however, of-beginning of-Creation, male and female He-made them the God.

So, third, BOTH words, "archees" and "ktiseoos," are genitive, feminine, singular words! They may have been formed FROM Greek nouns, but by virtue of their genitive case, they were actually ADJECTIVES in the sentence. The subject is "ho Theos," "the God," and the verb is "epoieesen" meaning "He-made" in the aorist (punctilinear) tense, indicative mood, and active voice. The direct object (the accusative case for the plural masculine gender) is on "autous." The indirect objects (each also the accusative case for the neuter gender) is "arsen kai theelu," "a male and a female."

Get the Greek grammar right, and it corrects one's thinking.

I see all of this as unnecessary.  The focus is on the meaning of "creation" in the original written language.  

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

No, actually you did the exact OPPOSITE! You didn't state "what it meant"; you actually "expanded upon the word and explained all the POSSIBILITIES of what it COULD mean." That's not good enough.

I gave the meaning from scholarly sources.  I went to the research section of a Christian university and there were about 3 or 4 pages to explain the origins of "ktisis".  I wasn't about to share that much info in a post.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

To my statement "Verse 1 is not a 'previous creation,' verse 2 being a 'restoration,'" you said,

It makes PERFECT sense, IF you start with the CORRECT DEFINITIONS! Being "without form" simply means being "without the form" the designer intended! When a person designs a house, he gives it a particular and useful design that a family will enjoy and be able to function within.

Except neither v.1 or 2 is about starting with a design.  It's about what God DID.  He created, out of nothing, the universe and earth.  He in fact spoke it all into existence, per Psa 33:6,9.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

A well-placed bomb will DESTROY that house, and the house will no longer be livable.

Right!  Just what both Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 describe for "tohu".  Thank you.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

It will be "WITHOUT the FORM intended."

You keep inserting opinion.  There is no "design" or "intention" in Genesis 1.  There is action, creation and asah, which means to make from existing materials, like Adam's body in Gen 2:7.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Since it is no longer livable, the family, if not themselves destroyed, will move on, fleeing the waste and destruction, and it will be empty or devoid of life! We've seen that happening in `Aza ("Gaza") lately.

Of course.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

I don't disagree with this; however, this is what Genesis 1 and 2 are talking about! The passage is ABOUT creatio ex nihilo - to create out of nothing, for everything He made was spoken into existence during those six days! PLEASE pay attention to the following argument:

v.1 is about bara; creating ex nihilo.  And much of what follows in the restoration is also out of nothing, as God restored the earth for man's use.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

We read this in Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:2-19 (KJV).....

The point I'm making is this: The word "HEAVEN" in verse 8 and the word "EARTH" in verse 10 are the SAME WORDS used in verse 1! This proves that verse 1 FORESHADOWS verses 8 and 10! It is a SUMMATION of what is to follow! Think of it as the main point in an outline before the lesser points or think of it as a title; either way, verse 1 ENGULFS the following verses, all the way down to the end of the Creation. THAT'S how the Hebrew reads, and THAT'S how the narrative is told!

Why do you have such a problem with understanding "tohu wabohu" the SAME WAY as we find in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11?

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Clouds are NOT "uncontained gases." Clouds are actually visible, CONDENSED water droplets formed on particles -dust, smoke, and other solid or liquid materials - found in the air, when the conditions are right. 

Air does NOT "contain" clouds.  Clouds simply exist in air.  Yes, we see them.  That proves they have form.  And their form changes as the air moves about.  

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Clouds are FORMED FROM "unseen gases," most of the time being invisible water vapor - gaseous H2O.

Doesn't matter.  We see what exists.  And that means clouds have form.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Some clouds or fogs are formed from more dangerous materials, such as tannic acid, methane gas, chlorine gas, ammonia, or sulfuric acid. If the "cloud" or "fog" has an unusual color, DON'T enter the "cloud" or "fog," especially in areas where trains have derailed or tanker trucks have overturned! And, DON'T STRIKE A MATCH OR LIGHTER in the vicinity! Some chemicals will burn EXPLOSIVELY!

Not relevant to Gen 1:2

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Ever hear of MOLTEN ROCK, MAGMA and LAVA?

Can't say that I have.  LOL. 

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Who says the "earth couldn't be formless?"

Common sense says.  If you can see it, it HAS form.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Why did God have to blow across it first? The Spirit (WIND) of God blew across the surface of the waters. The "surface of the DEEP" is a boundary of the EARTH!

What is your point here?  Blowing across the "waterS" (plural) would be the way to melt an ice pack that keeps the surface of the earth dark.  

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Verse 2,

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

BUT the earth BECAME "tohu wabohu" (an uninhabitable wasteland).

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

BEGINS Day 1. It discusses:

The shape of the material, the lack of life, darkess - the absence of light, the deep, the waters, and their surfaces. It talks about the WIND of God (for that's what "spirit" or "ruwach" in Hebrew means)! The "surface of the deep" (פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום) is said separately from the "surface of the waters" (פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם), implying two different surfaces.

Day 1 of the restoration for man's use.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

By the way, it really irks me when I read a version that says, "The Spirit of God hovered over ..." Since when does a WIND "hover?!" It can "blow gently" or "blow forcefully" or "blow strongly," but a WIND is the ENERGY behind MOVING gases, usually between two different pressures of air masses!

It wasn't wind that hovered.  It was the Holy Spirit.  He is capable of anything.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Now, if you want to think of it as a cyclone, either as a tornado or a hurricane, yes, they AS A SYSTEM can sometimes seem to "hover" over an area, but the winds themselves are FLYING VERY FAST!

No, I understand the verse to be speaking about the Holy Spirit.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

I believe He was cooling down the materials He had just made, but sure.

And I believe the Holy Spirit was melting the ice pack so God could restore the earth.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

He didn't say anything about that in verse 2; however, given that "the skies" and "the earth" are the direct objects in verse 1 of the verb bara' meaning "He-created-(from nothing)," then it is captivated in verse 2 through the rest of Day One in verse 5. "Our God is a CONSUMING FIRE!"

And God consumed the ice pack!  So He could restore the earth for man.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Now, let's talk about "'owr," "א֑וֹר" or "light": Since pure light was divided into its correlated spectrum, we've discovered that VISIBLE light is in a VERY SHORT portion of light's wavelengths (750 nm to 400 nm), and that the spectrum also includes radio waves, microwaves, radar, infrared light at one end, and ultraviolet light, x-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays at the other end of the spectrum!

Let's not.  No offense.  It's not relevant to what v.2 means.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

The contrast is simple: God created the material, BUT the material was still disorganized and lifeless.

Speculation/assumption.  Because of how "tohu wabohu" is used in Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, we KNOW, or should know, that the earth was laid waste, but unknown means, since God left the details out.  

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

One does not have to speculate about another whole Creation BEFORE the SIX DAYS!

Unless one understands the real meaning of "tohu wabohu" in v.2 and realizes that what God created in v.1 was laid waste by the time we get to v.2.  

There was ONE creation and ONE restoration, for man's use.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Remember what Yeeshuwa` did in healing a blind man at Bethsaida?

Mark 8:22-26 (KJV)

22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. 24 And he looked up, and said,

"I see men as trees, walking."

25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. 26 And he sent him away to his house, saying,

"Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town."

Sometimes, the Word of God who became the Son of God does things IN ST EPS!

Only here, btw.  All through Gen 1 God spoke things into existence, with NO steps at all.  And every other miracle of healing of Jesus during His ministry were instant.  So, no, His style wasn't "in steps" at all.  Actually, this miracle was out of character for His miracles.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

They are two separate words, not a phrase. Tohuw was used 20 times, and bohuw was used just the three times in connection with tohuw. Tohuw shows disorder, and bohuw shows being devoid of life. Don't make it a "thing!"

I guess you just don't want to deal with Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 and the clear context in which the words appear.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

The fact that haaytaah CAN mean "became" doesn't mean that it SHOULD mean "became" in every incident! Context is ALWAYS the driving force in translation! When one has the situation ...

It sure does WHEN God's perfect creation in v.1 was DESTROYED by unknown means and the earth required restoration for man's use.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

 

A "restoration of earth for man's use" is just as bad as "a few billion years of development through trial and error and survival of the fittest." BOTH change the truth of God into a lie!

I've shown that the words in v.2 are legitimate, ESP given Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, which blow a big hole in the traditional translation of v.2.

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Exodus 20:1-11 (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 "I am the LORD thy God (אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֔יךָ, Aanokhiy YHWH Eloheykhaa), which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 SIX DAYS shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH, THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IN THEM IS, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ..."

Anything else ... EVERYTHING else, makes God a LIAR!

How come you ignore the meaning of "made" here and seem to treat it as bara, rather than as asah?  

Actually, Ex 20:11 supports my understanding totally.

YES, God MADE the earth in 6 days.  That is STILL a restoration because of "tohu wabohu".

God MADE the earth in Gen 1 in 6 days from EXISTING MATERIALS, for the earth was already there.  He restored it.  If your theory was correct, Ex 20:11 should have used bara instead of asah.

[Retrobyter]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Fact is, Darwin outraged many people by pointing out that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.   And that's exactly what happened.   Darwin also thought that Englishmen were superior to other European peoples.    But he believed that could be easily changed.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

The REAL problem is believing that ANY "subspecies" of human beings (which is repulsive in my mouth even while writing this nonsense) are either superior or inferior! What did our forefathers in these United States of America write? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

But, even they were qualifying their statement, despite how nobly it was written!

Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR: There is ONLY the HUMAN race! There are no other races! All are descendants of Noach and his three sons and their wives, who in turn, were all descendants of Adam and Chavah. NO ONE is inferior to another, and NO ONE is superior to another! While God loves diversity and has made us all with various abilities and various degrees of ability, He loved the WHOLE WORLD of human beings, and He sent His Son to die for them ALL! And, WHOSOEVER will believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life!

He did NOT send His Son to die for the great apes or for the chimpanzee! Aborigines are FULLY HUMAN! Neanderthals were just an in-bred pocket of humanity, and they were (AND ARE) FULLY HUMAN!

ANYTHING that claims otherwise is calling God a LIAR!

Paul warned,

Romans 1:18-32 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Numbers 23:19-20 (KJV)

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent (change His mind): hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

Something to contemplate.

[The Barbarian]

17 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

The REAL problem is believing that ANY "subspecies" of human beings (which is repulsive in my mouth even while writing this nonsense) are either superior or inferior!

Far as we know, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and whoever else there was, were as smart and capable as anatomically modern humans.    They had larger brains than we do, for example, although some of that was due to having more muscular bodies.    In science "inferior" and "superior" don't mean anything as far as fitness is concerned.   Evidence shows that anatomically modern humans were unable to displace Neanderthals until fairly recent times when the climate changed.

They were different enough from us genetically that some scientists still think they are separate species.

21 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Let me make this PERFECTLY CLEAR: There is ONLY the HUMAN race!

There are races today, but they are merely cultural constructs.    The Human Genome Project made it clear that there are no longer separate biological races of humans.

22 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

All are descendants of Noach and his three sons and their wives

Noah came long after the other races of human were extinct.

23 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

He did NOT send His Son to die for the great apes or for the chimpanzee!

Only the descendants of Adam, to which God directly gives an immortal soul.

24 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Neanderthals were just an in-bred pocket of humanity, and they were (AND ARE) FULLY HUMAN!

Just a different race of humans.    Remember, there are humans like H. habilis that are of our own genus but clearly not of our species.  Neanderthals are genetically just this side of a separate species.  This is from 2019, and a different take on the issue:

To summarize, present-day humans outside of Africa show traces of Neanderthal DNA, but there are no Neanderthal mtDNA or Neanderthal Y chromosomes in modern human populations. The current consensus among anthropologists is that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens are indeed separate species, although that might change with further research and with the discovery of more Neanderthal samples.

https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/10/06/neanderthal-dna-how-different-were-they-from-humans/

The consensus has shifted a bit since then, and I think most people in the field think of Neanderthals as another race of H. sapiens.

43 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

ANYTHING that claims otherwise is calling God a LIAR!

Since God chose not to tell us about Neanderthals at all, that makes no sense.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Did you mean "lake larve".  I don't know what a valve is.

A varve is a sort of annual record of sedimentation found in some kinds of lakes.   You get a summer and a winter layer, one light and one dark.    So if you have undisturbed sediments, you can get ages by counting varves.     The key here is that cosmic radiation varies a bit from age to age, and cosmic radiation is the primary source of C-14 in the atmosphere.   So by doing C-14 analyses of varves of known age, we can more precisely calibrate C-14 dating.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So a "mother" has offspring that are different genetically?

Always.   You are not merely a collection of genes from your two parents.   You have about a hundred mutations that were present in neither of your parents.    Most don't do much that's different.   A few are harmful and tend to be removed from the population, and a very few are useful and tend to increase in the population and change it.    So the population genome is always changing.   As Darwin predicted, it changes less for a well-adapted population in a stable environment.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I see natural selection as simply those with more common traits getting together more.  But how would that result in a different "race"?

Natural selection means that some have genes that change the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.   Because some genes tend to be removed and some tend to be favored, over time the population genome changes and this can eventually produce new races, species, genera, etc.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You missed my play on words.  Like, noun and verb.  Jesus' resurrection body retained all His physical characteristics as before His death.  He was a man, and still is.

I don't think we become genderless, and I do know the verse about "in Christ there is neither male or female".  Since females were viewed inferiorly to males in the ancient world, the verse is about equality between all people, with gender no longer an issue.

It seems odd that we'd have sex organs for an eternity where we would never use them.

 

[FreeGrace]

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

A varve is a sort of annual record of sedimentation found in some kinds of lakes.   You get a summer and a winter layer, one light and one dark.    So if you have undisturbed sediments, you can get ages by counting varves.     The key here is that cosmic radiation varies a bit from age to age, and cosmic radiation is the primary source of C-14 in the atmosphere.   So by doing C-14 analyses of varves of known age, we can more precisely calibrate C-14 dating.

Thanks!

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

  FreeGrace said: 

So a "mother" has offspring that are different genetically?

Always.   You are not merely a collection of genes from your two parents.   You have about a hundred mutations that were present in neither of your parents.

Other than "magic", how does one get genes that weren't present in either parent?

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Natural selection means that some have genes that change the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce.

All cells reproduce.  That's how we grow.  Or maintain.  Or not, with age.   

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

   Because some genes tend to be removed and some tend to be favored, over time the population genome changes and this can eventually produce new races, species, genera, etc.

OK, "tend to b removed".  Sounds rather vague.  How or how are they removed?

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It seems odd that we'd have sex organs for an eternity where we would never use them.

 

I never said anything about genitals.  But it seems most logical that there are genders in heaven.  Jesus is the Son of God.  That's male.  Not neuter.

[The Barbarian]

29 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I never said anything about genitals.  But it seems most logical that there are genders in heaven.  Jesus is the Son of God.  That's male.  Not neuter.

And we probably won't care.   Gender is biological after all, in spite of what some people think.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a common superstition, but it's false.   Darwinians like Punnett and Morgan proved that the eugenic fantasies of people like YE creationist William J. Tinkle and the Nazis were not only morally corrupt but scientifically unsupportable. 

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? 

Nope.   Just a fact.  Darwinians proved that the eugenicists were wrong.

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nazi's as young earth creationists???

Nazis merely shared the eugenicist errors of early YE creationists.   Their religious inclinations were more toward Martin Luther, whom they praised lavishly because of his hatred of Jews.

They hated Darwin but unlike the creationists, they hated him for his notions that all humans shared the same sort of mental processes and ancestry.    Their version of evolution was more like that of Wm. Tinkle.

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The Japanese thought they were superior to any other race.  The Nazi's thought the Aryan race was the apex of human evolution.

The Japanese thought their culture was superior, not their race.    They intended to spread their culture through the pacific.   And as you learned, the Nazi conception of evolution had been debunked by Darwinists.    The creationists and Nazis were alike mostly because they liked eugenics and thought some races were superior to others.

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

YE creationist and ICR co-founder Henry Morris The Beginning of the World

I realize that many creationists have rejected these ideas.   Today, many if not most creationists would be appalled by the foundations of YE creationism, as you seem to be.

Fact is, Darwin outraged many people by pointing out that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. 

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You mean more evolved. 

No.  Darwin was aware that evolution would not work that fast.   He thought that the superior culture of England would convert them in a few generations to be just like Englishmen.

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In now way did Darwin consider these people equals.

He didn't consider Englishmen and Frenchmen equals.   You're catching on, I think.

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The fact is, he also decried the mistreatment of animals. 

But he didn't assert that animals were human beings with rights and dignity.   Which he did for all humans.    This is one way in which he differed with the creationists of his time, such as Capt. Fitzroy.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by The Barbarian

[FreeGrace]

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

And we probably won't care.   Gender is biological after all, in spite of what some people think.

 

I'm sure we won't care.   

[The Barbarian]

47 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Other than "magic", how does one get genes that weren't present in either parent?

Mutations.  Some by gene duplication, followed by mutation, but it has become known that often mutation of non-coding DNA produces new genes.   And sometimes mutation merely produces a new allele (different version) of an existing gene.

49 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

All cells reproduce.  That's how we grow.  Or maintain.  Or not, with age.

Yes.   And they often have mutations.  But unless they pass life on to a new individual, those mutations are lost.   Only mutations in sperm or egg cells get passed on.

50 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, "tend to b removed".  Sounds rather vague.  How or how are they removed?

Suppose a mutation like the myostatin mutation in humans happens to an antelope.   It will be slower than other antelope.    Lions and cheetahs look for those guys, because they are easier prey.   So that mutation is unlikely to be passed on. 

  

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You could say that but it wouldn't make it true.

I was saying I could make a claim and blame it all on atheists.  Of course all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.  I was having a little sport with a spurious claim.