Evidence for God from Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQhPvtv ... ture=share


Needless to say, I couldn't agree more with him on this topic.

DRDS wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQhPvtv ... ture=share


Needless to say, I couldn't agree more with him on this topic.

That is why it's so important to understand that the bible was originally written not in English. That one word (day) can cause such a confusion in people interpretation of the bible that it can sometimes shake their faith.
Hugh Ross also pointed this out too. Nice video link Derrick

One thing I noticed that Craig said was that certain evolutionists that believe in a literal Adam, believe he was just one of tens of thousands of humans living at the time. Can an evolutionist believe that Adam was the first human? Doesn't evolutionism teach that whole populations evolve, not individuals? So, if one is going to hold to evolution and scripture, one cannot believe Adam was the first human, correct? From what I understand, the studies done on mitochondrial DNA, show that modern humanity came from a very small population of individuals. Perhaps as small as two. Now, this certainly doesn't prove the biblical idea of the special creation of man, but it certainly harmonizes the idea with scripture.

One thing I noticed that Craig said was that certain evolutionists that believe in a literal Adam, believe he was just one of tens of thousands of humans living at the time. Can an evolutionist believe that Adam was the first human? Doesn't evolutionism teach that whole populations evolve, not individuals? So, if one is going to hold to evolution and scripture, one cannot believe Adam was the first human, correct? From what I understand, the studies done on mitochondrial DNA, show that modern humanity came from a very small population of individuals. Perhaps as small as two. Now, this certainly doesn't prove the biblical idea of the special creation of man, but it certainly harmonizes the idea with scripture.

Rick, not to sound like a know-it-all, but let me try to clear up what I think you are going for here.

While evolution does teach that populations evolve, this is only to distinguish it from the notion that an individual can evolve (like within an organism's lifetime). Any kind of new species would technically have to start somewhere, possibly even through one or two mutant offspring who happen to come to dominate the population they came out of. To make up a scenario, if Adam was born into a group of sub-human primates as a mutant child, he would be the first human. If over time his genetic information that made him human came to overwhelm the rest of the population, that's when a scientist would be able to say that humans "evolved." It's kind of hard to explain, but even if a new species comes mainly from one or two individuals, it is hard to track until that species becomes a larger population.

As far as what you read about mitochondrial DNA...Biologists and geneticists have indeed used the phrase "mitochondrial Eve" to describe the earliest known ancestor of all modern day humans. It's not the same as them saying mitochondrial Eve was the first female human, but simply that she was part of a group of early humans and she ultimately gave birth to the only girls that went on to continue to reproduce. Therefore, we all share her DNA, even just a little bit. There is a sort-of-similar study done to find the latest male that we are all related to, but as I understand it this is less easy to explain and not as straightforward as studying mitochondrial DNA.

RickD wrote:One thing I noticed that Craig said was that certain evolutionists that believe in a literal Adam, believe he was just one of tens of thousands of humans living at the time. Can an evolutionist believe that Adam was the first human? Doesn't evolutionism teach that whole populations evolve, not individuals? So, if one is going to hold to evolution and scripture, one cannot believe Adam was the first human, correct? From what I understand, the studies done on mitochondrial DNA, show that modern humanity came from a very small population of individuals. Perhaps as small as two. Now, this certainly doesn't prove the biblical idea of the special creation of man, but it certainly harmonizes the idea with scripture.

While Genesis 2 can be viewed as stating that Adam and Ever were the first humans, nowhere does it stated the ONLY humans in ALL the earth.
The issues of the other people that were around in regards to Cain implies that there were others.
It may well be that Adam and Eve were a special creation of God in Eden and that then they went out amongst the world and through them and their descendents we are blessed AND cursed.
Cursed because through them the rest of humanity entered into sin and blessed because of God's grace through Christ.

PaulSacramento wrote: While Genesis 2 can be viewed as stating that Adam and Ever were the first humans, nowhere does it stated the ONLY humans in ALL the earth.
The issues of the other people that were around in regards to Cain implies that there were others.
It may well be that Adam and Eve were a special creation of God in Eden and that then they went out amongst the world and through them and their descendents we are blessed AND cursed.
Cursed because through them the rest of humanity entered into sin and blessed because of God's grace through Christ.

I have a question: What Genesis 3:20 says about Eve?
"20 Now the man called his wife’s name [h]Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

1over137 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: While Genesis 2 can be viewed as stating that Adam and Ever were the first humans, nowhere does it stated the ONLY humans in ALL the earth.
The issues of the other people that were around in regards to Cain implies that there were others.
It may well be that Adam and Eve were a special creation of God in Eden and that then they went out amongst the world and through them and their descendents we are blessed AND cursed.
Cursed because through them the rest of humanity entered into sin and blessed because of God's grace through Christ.

I have a question: What Genesis 3:20 says about Eve?
"20 Now the man called his wife’s name [h]Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

What about that?
Certainly Eve is not the mother of all the living things and, at the time that Adam called her Eve she wasn't even a mother yet.
Whatever the passage means I don't think we can MAKE it mean that Eve was mother of all things that lived UNLESS we take MOTHER to mean mother in the since of the female caregiver, the female that takes care of things, know what I mean?

1over137 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: While Genesis 2 can be viewed as stating that Adam and Ever were the first humans, nowhere does it stated the ONLY humans in ALL the earth.
The issues of the other people that were around in regards to Cain implies that there were others.
It may well be that Adam and Eve were a special creation of God in Eden and that then they went out amongst the world and through them and their descendents we are blessed AND cursed.
Cursed because through them the rest of humanity entered into sin and blessed because of God's grace through Christ.

I have a question: What Genesis 3:20 says about Eve?
"20 Now the man called his wife’s name [h]Eve, because she was the mother of all the living."

Good point Hana. I think it's quite clear there, but anyway. Not to mention all being in Adam like in Christ as found in Romans 5.

At the end of the day I think the evidence for human evolution is way too thin to accept... although one might feel pressure to succumb since it is a popular view of our time. To not, is to be considered less than intelligent because "everyone" knows better, and in debate no one wants that stigma attached to them and ruining any other truths they say.

Environment and conditioning influences our beliefs heavily, and it is often hard to go against the flow. Even when people know something is wrong (like electric shocking someone else), studies show people still do it because they defer to an authority rather than believe in themself. There is a sheep or herd mentality we all have, a certain comfort zone we enjoy, and we often don't like to sacrifice that.

Evolutionary thought is certainly hard to go against given the authority behind it, media and general negative sentiments towards God and Christianity, even religion at large. To me, the same evidence that suggests evolution from one species to the next also supports common design by one designer. But since God, or an intelligent creator, is ruled out by many from the get go, obviously this isn't going to be the popular view today.

Hana, you're a coder, so you'll easily grasp common design. I'm sure that you wouldn't start out from scratch each and every time you program something new. Rather, you make use of previous templates you've developed, and even frameworks. I reckon once I see some things you've programmed, that I'd be able see similarities in design with pieces of code and functions that you've re-used throughout. Should I then declare that your programs naturally evolved from one to the other due to these similarities?

A lot of similarities we see in life on Earth supports, if not more-so, God making use of a framework that He Himself developed. Would we expect otherwise from one Designer -- the Ultimate Coder? It's even efficient to do so. Yet, while many creatures would share a lot of commonalities through "re-used code", I believe humans are created brand new just as I read in Genesis.

C'mon people. It's not rocket surgery that a common designer would use the same stuff to create different things.

RickD wrote:C'mon people. It's not rocket surgery that a common designer would use the same stuff to create different things.

Exactly Rick. why would it not make sense to us, and since when did we ever observe a language (code) come about by anything other than a mind??????????
It makes so much sense that its silly.