After adam and eve, evolution?

[rockytriton]

And again, sorry… I'll try not to let Rocky side-track me again. :confused:

 

sorry

[cwes99_03]

Irish are you reposting your own comments? Hehe. Hope to hear any thoughts you have on the thread.

 

Thanks guys for helping me come back to topic.

[Boerseun]

Howdy doody blah dih bloody blah.

 

Irisheyeballs, as much as I appreciate your comments, I ca n't actulaaly remember why I wanted to piclk a fight with you! HAppy (pidk the fday of your choicfre)

 

Whooopty fooo/gf

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

I've heard many professed christians say that they believe that God created a few creatures and then set forth evolution to allow for diversification. Without delving into the fight on creation vs. evolution (I ask the moderators and admins to help me here, to make this thread a real theological issue), does anyone think the following view is a viable Biblical answer to the current scientific view of mutation/evolution?

 

The Bible says that Adam and Eve and a great many creatures and plant life were created by God and placed on the earth. Adam and Eve then sinned and were removed from the Garden of Eden and told that they would toil and work the ground and eventually die. Sin is the trait passed down from parent to child that keeps mankind from attaining to perfection (minus the tree of life in the Garden which is being guarded from entrance by angels).

The world Adam and Eve were placed in after being removed from the Garden was obviously also imperfect. Could this be an answer to the scientific evidence suggesting some evolution has taken place? That God in fact did create everything, but once he removed Adam and Eve from the Garden, the imperfect world which he placed them in fell into a similar state of "disrepair" where animals and plants mutated because of their imperfections and the imperfections of the world in which they lived?

One thing genetic maps of DNA do where the first complete Genome of a human was accomplished only about a year ago is show that MUCH of the DNA from a living creature is doing NOTHING! Left over junk maybe used by other species but many times just stuff DNA that infiltrated somewhere along the years.

It would be interesting to conjecture that perhaps Adam and Eve at one time had

PERFECT complete and better DNA than anyone in existence since the FALL of man from the original sinning. This could perhaps explain why the ages at death continued to fall since the Adam and Eve in addition to other factors such as much poorer environment and other factors not all known occuring after the great Flood.

What (in addition) is amazing that some people would actually believe that the biblical

description of things is NOT accurate especially just because somehow at this time some of it does not fit the general scientific attitude at the time!

Believe you me many of us take the Biblical accounts as FACT which must mean that

this Science many of "scientists" want to hee haw about must be lacking a great deal!

The Holy Bible has been of much more use and comfort to me that any damn science book and believe me I have looked at more than a few of the lattter.

So what kind of "statistical fit to data points" are you going to spit out next

scientists? (even knowing that basic statistics is flawed axiomatically and all data collected is only a manner of individual interpretation!)

:confused:

omg! i do not want to point out my glee that i have eternal life guarenteed! in a place where the least member has it better than anyone in this life! try to get that from reading a science book.

and... gee before you tell me all the great things science has done for mankind i would like to ask you what time it is on the doomsday clock? what is it now something like 3 minutes to Mid-Night? Not much time left for choosing your favorite book!

[Edge]

Well, I don't know. Last time I checked science wasn't mean just to confort people...

[TRoutMac]

One thing genetic maps of DNA do where the first complete Genome of a human was accomplished only about a year ago is show that MUCH of the DNA from a living creature is doing NOTHING! Left over junk maybe used by other species but many times just stuff DNA that infiltrated somewhere along the years.

 

Before I make my point, please consider the following definition of "junk DNA" from:

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu

 

Stretches of DNA that do not code for genes; most of the genome consists of so-called junk DNA which may have regulatory and other functions. Also called non-coding DNA.

 

Note the language, "may have regulatory and other functions." It's clear from this definition and many others using similar language that nobody knows with any degree of certainty that "junk DNA" actually does nothing, and in fact it would appear that research is beginning to find functions for "junk DNA".

 

Now, many at this forum have criticized the theory of Intelligent Design because they think it's an "argument from ignorance"… that IDers look at complexity and say "We don't understand how this could have happened, so God must have done it." This is their (rather poor) charicature of the Intelligent Design position. Having said that, consider the following, and understand that I mean no offense to you… you and I may have views in common, so I'm not arguing against you here, I just want to make this point:

 

It seems to me that to label "Junk DNA" as such is its own "argument from ignorance." We don't understand why a particular stretch of DNA is there, therefore it must be "junk". It's a great way to squelch scientific discovery… label it is "junk" and that way nobody will be motivated to find what its purpose actually is. We already know… it's "junk". I would gently remind you there was a moment in time when scientists looked for the first time at a DNA strand and didn't know what any of it meant, or even that it "meant" anything. We could have just labelled it all "junk" and then moved on, right? If we had, would we know what we know now? Obviously not.

 

So, I would suggest a different view of "junk DNA", one that recognizes the progress of science, that science finds, discovers and learns and what we thought we knew yesterday will likely be supplanted by new and better knowledge.

 

Again, no offense intended. Thanks for your comments!

[IrishEyes]

Irish are you reposting your own comments? Hehe. Hope to hear any thoughts you have on the thread.

 

Thanks guys for helping me come back to topic.

Sorry, kids were going crazy on Super Tux and re-posted. See what happens when little munchkins get on mummy's keyboard? YIKES!!

 

Irisheyeballs, as much as I appreciate your comments, I ca n't actulaaly remember why I wanted to piclk a fight with you! HAppy (pidk the fday of your choicfre)

Hey B, what the heck are ya yammerin' on about now, man? Geez, I so love you!! Why on earth would you wanna pick a fight with ME? You're so adorable. And I forgot to add a :confused: after that last hotdog comment. Geez those things are really dis-gus-ting!! I have no idea how children can consume them and manage not to worship the porcelain goddess every time!!

[cwes99_03]

Ok you four, the two discussing the Bible, if it doesn't pertain to this thread find another one and leave this one in peace. I asked a serious question, and anyone who reads your gibberish might get turned off from the discussion.

As for Irish, and Bor, can't you two do this in private ;-)?

 

Woe is me, my question seems to go unanswered. Guess an earlier post was right, I'd have to post it on one of those forums, but unfortunately those forums are filled with freaks who only want to discuss some obscure verse that they think proves some ungodly, unscriptural thing.

 

Ho Hum. Kids stay off mommy's keyboard with the toys.

[TRoutMac]

Ok you four, the two discussing the Bible, if it doesn't pertain to this thread find another one and leave this one in peace. I asked a serious question, and anyone who reads your gibberish might get turned off from the discussion.

 

You got a serious answer from me, Cwes99. If I've still not answered your question, then I'm afraid you're not communicating your question as well as it could be communicated.

 

Having said that, I am again guilty of getting side-tracked with the previous mention of "junk DNA". Again, my apologies. I tend not to want to let these things go by, but I forget that to comment on them is to hijack your topic. That's not my intent.

 

As I indicated earlier, I don't see how any answer you get is going to be anything other than speculative. There's just no way to know either through scientific inquiry or by examining the Bible.

 

I hope you get more serious answers, Cwes99.

[Harzburgite]

I am not certain that your premises are valid. I'd like to explore those before addressing your central question.

The world Adam and Eve were placed in after being removed from the Garden was obviously also imperfect.

I do not see any justification for this view. Perhaps you can enlighten me: justify the claim of imperfection.

 

To me the contrary seems true: most of the description of the land beyond Eden is neutral in tone. Where it is judgemental it is so in a positive way. Thus in Genesis 2:11 and 2:12 we read

 

2:11 The name of the first (river) is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

2:12 And the gold of that land is good: .....

 

Earlier in Genesis 2 we learn that the entire Earth was provided with a full range of vegetation, which is in no way distinguished from that within the Garden.

 

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

As far as I can see, from a reading of Genesis, the Garden of Eden is distinguished from the land outwith by two things only:

 

1) The presence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

2) The presence of the Tree of Life

 

Consequently, the Fall is a fall of Adam and Eve. They are the ones who lose perfection. The perfection of Nature, whether within the Garden or outwith the Garden is not effected. On that basis I cannot see any Biblical justification for your proposal that the imperfect animals and plants then suffered further mutation, for it was Adam and Eve, and their progeny, who were now imperfect, not the rest of Nature. The rest of Nature still lacked a knowledge of Good and Evil, since Nature had not partaken of the Tree of Knowledge. Hence Nature was still perfect.

[goku]

I don't think people actually take the story of Adam and Eve seriously.

ye know, you either believe the whole bible or don't believe at all. :shrug:

i for one know that every word of the bible is true. :umno:

[goku]

i have not seen any conclusive, or factual, evidence of evolution :shrug:

question: why do some people want to try to make evolution fit into the bible?

[cwes99_03]

Actually, I don't believe in evolution, but I know that mutation exists. I am merely posing the idea that the mutations were bound to occur after Adam and Eve were removed from Eden, and that this may be the source that scientists refer to when they say that we must have evolved because look at the mutations that occur all the time.

[Harzburgite]

I am perplexed. You asked for a theological discussion. I have demonstrated, using biblical sources, why your basic premise may be flawed. I was rather hoping for a more substantial response than "actually I don't believe in evolution'. If this was a reply to the immendiately prior post, then I am disappointed rather than perplexed.

[lindagarrette]

question: why do some people want to try to make evolution fit into the bible?

I've asked that question hundreds of times. You'd think someone would step up to explain. Obviously the bible has nothing to do with evolution or any science, as evident from the outset.

[lindagarrette]

ye know, you either believe the whole bible or don't believe at all. :shrug:

That's right! Science is so at odds with biblical explanations of origins that anyone trying to mix the two must get very confused. At what point do you believe one over the other, and on what basis? Fundamentalists have the most honest philosophy. By ignoring scientific facts, they can avoid the whole controversy.

[questor]

the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew languages, translated numerous times by scholars

faintly familiar with the language, repackaged with modern words and syntax, and you want to argue about its verbal veracity ? why not recognize it for what it is.. a marvelous collection of tales, myths, allegories and sermons which contain some truth, but like the poems of HOMER are heroic accounts of events which may or may not have occurred as written. you cannot accept this as true, word for word.