Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[The Barbarian]

That’s not true at all if you actually take what was written literally.

As even early Christians knew, the text itself tells you that you can't take it as literal history.

Then you have the genealogies from Adam to Christ amounting to 4,000 years.

The Bible has two conflicting genealogies for Jesus. So they can't be literal.

 

[The Barbarian]

And you probably didn't know, but replication only works if the double strand unwinds. And then of course, the mRNA would have no way of detecting what the complementary base would have been.

With a statement like that, you reveal your ignorance.

What I wrote is just a fact. Check it out for yourself.

What you say is false. DNA is in sequence A always pairs with T and G always pairs with C in dsDNA. mRNA has no need of knowing what the complementary strand of DNA would be because they are exactly complementary.

Unless there's a change in the sequence after they unwind. That's one way a mutation can occur, say by random radiation.

The point is that if a set of DNA is 98 % identical, yet produces only 20% protein similarity,

... It means a lot of non-coding DNA is involved. And it also means that things like hemoglobin, even in humans and chimps will have some differences, and thus not be identical. Even if human hemoglobin and chimpanzee hemoglobin are more like each other than the hemoglobins of other apes.

I don't think you've given this much thought. On the other hand, your claim that about 20% of proteins (cytochrome C for example) are identical is pretty amazing for species that have diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. But it really doesn't mean much unless you can show the data for how much protein humans and chimps have in common with other apes. I'm guessing you have no idea.

I admit that I can’t prove my position. My faith does not rest in my knowledge of science.

Which is a good thing. Neither does mine. I'm not being sarcastic here.

There were evolutionary theories around in His day, yet He thought them not worth mentioning

The were theories about the Earth being round, too. Yet He thought them not worth mentioning. I think I know why.

Faith in a common ancestor is not required for me to do my work

Nor is it a requirement for any real scientist. We go on evidence. Creationism goes on faith. But often, it's faith in man's reasoning, not in God.

No one has proven a common ancestor and the possibility that one exists gets less and less the more we know.

DNA shows that we do have a common ancestor. And we know the method works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. Creationism can only demur and claim that it's luck or whatever. YE creationism gets to do things like that, because it's religion, not science.

It is not a new religion, it has been around a long time

It dates to the beginning of the 20th century. Would you like me to show you?

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't know it when I mentioned hemoglobin, but turns out, it shows more evidence for humans and other apes evolving from a common ancestor...

In most vertebrates, hemoglobin (Hb) is a heterotetramer composed of two dissimilar globin chains, which change during development according to the patterns of expression of α- and β-globin family members. In placental mammals, the β-globin cluster includes three early-expressed genes, ε(HBE)-γ(HBG)-ψβ(HBBP1), and the late expressed genes, δ (HBD) and β (HBB). While HBB encodes the major adult β-globin chain, HBD is weakly expressed or totally silent. Paradoxically, in human populations HBD shows high levels of conservation typical of genes under strong evolutionary constraints, possibly due to a regulatory role in the fetal-to-adult switch unique of Anthropoid primates. In this study, we have performed a comprehensive phylogenetic and comparative analysis of the two adult β-like globin genes in a set of diverse mammalian taxa, focusing on the evolution and functional divergence of HBD in primates. Our analysis revealed that anthropoids are an exception to a general pattern of concerted evolution in placental mammals, showing a high level of sequence conservation at HBD, less frequent and shorter gene conversion events. Moreover, this lineage is unique in the retention of a functional GATA-1 motif, known to be involved in the control of the developmental expression of the β-like globin genes. We further show that not only the mode but also the rate of evolution of the δ-globin gene in higher primates are strictly associated with the fetal/adult β-cluster developmental switch. To gain further insight into the possible functional constraints that have been shaping the evolutionary history of HBD in primates, we calculated dN/dS (ω) ratios under alternative models of gene evolution. Although our results indicate that HBD might have experienced different selective pressures throughout primate evolution, as shown by different ω values between apes and Old World Monkeys + New World Monkeys (0.06 versus 0.43, respectively), these estimates corroborated a constrained evolution for HBD in Anthropoid lineages, which is unlikely to be related to protein function. Collectively, these findings suggest that sequence change at the δ-globin gene has been under strong selective constraints over 65 Myr of primate evolution, likely due to a regulatory role in ontogenic switches of gene expression.
Moleirinho A, Lopes AM, Seixas S, Morales-Hojas R, Prata MJ, Amorim A. Distinctive patterns of evolution of the δ-globin gene (HBD) in primates. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 8;10(4):e0123365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123365. PMID: 25853817; PMCID: PMC4390247.

How about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

A Comparative Study of Haemoglobin and Myoglobin Sequences in Selected Primates using Blast and Cobalt ​

Protein sequences of Haemoglobin (Hb) and Myoglobin (Mb) were downloaded from SWISSPROT and studied using bioinformatic tools BLAST and COBALT. It was found that Hb was much more conserved than Mb and that Human sequences should (sic) great similarity to Chimpanzees. Old World monkeys showed maximum differences. Phylogenetic trees constructed were consistent with previous studies which mapped the evolutionary route. Authors suggest a drastic overhaul of bioinformatic syllabi at practical and theory level so that students of zoology are equipped to use bioinformatic tools for their investigation in taxonomy, systematics, evolution etc.

http://livestom.stthomas.ac.in:8085/index.php/Veritas/article/view/6

​

 

[sfs]

Ok I read the article, with all due respect, and I mean it, not like in the movies Ricki Bobbi says all due respect means you get to insult some one, the article makes the argument from human perception not fact, then it uses statistics in an attempt to prove its point. It would be an article where a man is making an hypothesis based on his perception. It looks like this is mutation to me, the he makes the declaration that it is evolutionary mutation based on his perception.

What we need is to dig deeper. The genetic code is more than A,T,C and G. In the DNA molecule A always pairs with T and C always pairs with G. So half of those “mutations” would not be real mutations but mistakes as an A substituted for C would cause the two strands of DNA not to match and lose function.
Also, the genetic code is not in single base pair arrangement. Genes are grouped in triplet pairs called Codons. DNA contains the source code. RNA enters the nucleus and transcribes the source code in reverse then travels to the ribosome to transcribe the code into protein
Each triplet code is paired with a particular amino acid to build a protein molecule in sequence, and there is a triplet that tells the ribosome to stop transcribing called fhe stop codon. One form of muscular dystrophy is caused by a mutation in the DNA that caused the RNA to present a stop codon too early and the protein that maintains muscle integrity is not formed.
Single base pair mutations or fusions such as happens in a world full of ionizing radiation, result in mistakes. We all like to think that if we had enough gamma radiation we could be the Hulk, but it does not work that way. That is why radiation sickness causes your skin to slough off, eyes to melt, massive nausea and vomiting, and your hair to fall out. The mutations in the rapidly dividing cells of skin, hair and stomach lining have died due to excess mutation and they cannot function. It is also what we try to do to cancer when we hit it with radiation. We want it to die.
The article you cited does not prove evolution, but it can show that further investigation is needed. Where is that investigation? A person using the article that you cited would be spinning a narrative, not practicing science. There is way more to the story

Do you see what I mean, or am I mistaken?

I see that you wrote a lot and that none of it explains why this isn't evidence for common descent. Common descent makes a specific prediction about a pattern we should see in genetic data. When we look at genetic data, we see exactly that pattern. No other hypothesis has been offered to explain that pattern. That's how scientists test hypotheses.

Mind you, biologists are not setting out to test common descent, because as a hypothesis is was tested over and over more than a century ago and has long ago become accepted throughout the field. And that was before genetics came along and spectacularly confirmed it in much more detail.

All of this is just a distraction from my original point, however. You claimed that the arguments of evolutionary biology wouldn't stand up to the slightest scientific scrutiny, e.g. wouldn't pass muster in a PhD defense. How does this claim make any sense to you? Students are awarded PhDs all the time by biology departments in major research universities. Do you think that they're not defending their theses? Or that all biologists everywhere aren't actually scientists? The members of the National Academy of Sciences enthusiastically support evolutionary biology. Do you think they've never judged PhD defenses? In what universe does your claim make sense?

 

[BNR32FAN]

As even early Christians knew, the text itself tells you that you can't take it as literal history.

The Bible has two conflicting genealogies for Jesus. So they can't be literal.

No that’s incorrect because Matthew gives a genealogy leading up to Joseph who was not a blood relative to Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin. Luke gives a genealogy up to Mary who was His blood relative.

 

[trophy33]

No that’s incorrect because Matthew gives a genealogy leading up to Joseph who was not a blood relative to Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin. Luke gives a genealogy up to Mary who was His blood relative.

Both genealogies are of Joseph.

"...Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Mt 1

"Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry. He was regarded as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi..."
Lk 3

 

[The Barbarian]

No that’s incorrect because Matthew gives a genealogy leading up to Joseph who was not a blood relative to Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin. Luke gives a genealogy up to Mary who was His blood relative.

No, that excuse won't work, either. Luke's genealogy is also for Joseph.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I see that you wrote a lot and that none of it explains why this isn't evidence for common descent. Common descent makes a specific prediction about a pattern we should see in genetic data. When we look at genetic data, we see exactly that pattern. No other hypothesis has been offered to explain that pattern. That's how scientists test hypotheses.

Mind you, biologists are not setting out to test common descent, because as a hypothesis is was tested over and over more than a century ago and has long ago become accepted throughout the field. And that was before genetics came along and spectacularly confirmed it in much more detail.

All of this is just a distraction from my original point, however. You claimed that the arguments of evolutionary biology wouldn't stand up to the slightest scientific scrutiny, e.g. wouldn't pass muster in a PhD defense. How does this claim make any sense to you? Students are awarded PhDs all the time by biology departments in major research universities. Do you think that they're not defending their theses? Or that all biologists everywhere aren't actually scientists? The members of the National Academy of Sciences enthusiastically support evolutionary biology. Do you think they've never judged PhD defenses? In what universe does your claim make sense?

My claim is that it is not real science. Real science will follow the evidence wherever it goes. It does not stop and say whoopee we found it, not we are going to force the rest of the world to believe what we have found. The naturalistic man ignores any evidence that would point to the impossibility of materialism being the only answer.

Today over 90% of the NAS are committed atheists. They will not allow any possibility of God into scientific research, so they search for naturalistic solutions no matter how fanciful to prove their point. It’s like saying, well it could have happened that way, so it did. That is not scientific. People today are getting PhDs today, not from scientists, rather committed naturalists.

That article is a case in point. The results are not surprising given that there are only 4 bases and only two different base pairs to choose from. The article does not answer the question of common descent. If I was your examiner, I would tell you that you made an interesting hypothesis, but you have no proof. What do your findings mean? To you they imply descent, but do they really? If so, then the genetic code would be consistent across species, so that an accidental mutation in one would have no problem translating into the other. A consistent genetic code would go a long way in proving your hypothesis, but you have not demonstrated it here. Can you show a consistent genetic code?
No PhD today, please get more data.

If the genetic code is not consistent, the odds of your hypothesis being true increase dramatically. Instead of one or two base pair mutations, your theory would involve a rewriting of the genetic code with each species descended. The odds of that happening reach absurdity.

What does the data show? The DNA and chimps are supposedly 98% identical. Ok
What about the code? Experiments so far have shown that chimps and humans only have 20% of proteins in common. What? 98% identical DNA only makes 20% similar proteins? What’s going on? A theory that at first seems convincing that a rearrangement of only a few alleles or mutations now needs a whole new genetic code. You can keep searching for a naturalistic explanation, but you are like the guy that thinks 10million dollars will show up in his driveway. I mean a Brinks truck with a two man drunk crew carrying 10 million dollars could crash and spill the cash in your driveway at 4 in the morning and a sinkhole opens up to swallow the truck and crew but leaves the cash with you and the company writes the whole thing off as a catastrophic loss and the cash you have is all in easily negotiable 20 dollar bills and not suspicious hundreds. But do you think that is really going to happen?

The gentic code is not consistent between species or even in the same cell. Mitochondria and nuclear DNA have different triplet codes. Do you even know the probability of what you are proposing as natural processes? Your faith in evolution exceeds reason. People know that explanation of phenomenon with increasing odds of improbability are increasingly unlikely to be true. We all know that if it’s too good to be true here, it ain’t

We can watch you keep struggling to come up with fanciful explanations for people to believe, but it does not convince thinking men of reason, just like telling the cops that 10million in unmarked 20s just appeared to you as described is not going to convince them either

We as Christians know that God loves us and gave Himself for us. Genesis offers the most consistent and rational explanation for the world’s existence when taken as literally true.

My hat goes off to SDA that have stuck with the literal interpretation of Genesis, despite calls to doubt. I wish some of my Catholic colleagues had the guts. Satan had sent tares amongst the wheat of the Church to be sure.
Just like digging into evolutions claims show it to be increasingly unlikely, one has to dig through Catholic teaching to show that evolution was never what the Church taught. Some claim she did, but what was only proposed was a thoughtful examination, not the propagation of it as fact.

There is no conflict with the Catholic Church and true science. Charlatans manipulate data to their own agenda, but reason can show that Genesis is true as written. God created the world in six days, and on the seventh He rested.

I invite any SDA that is interested in how Genesis can be shown to be rational according to today’s science to view the Kolbe Center series How the World was made in Six Days. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on it.-

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no conflict with the Catholic Church and true science.

Hence this from the Vatican:

In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
From INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION Communion and Stewardship; Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, that excuse won't work, either. Luke's genealogy is also for Joseph.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

The oldest explanation is that it’s possible that Mary had no brothers to be heirs to their family inheritance so Eli or Heli adopted Joseph as his son in law and Joseph took on their family name. Hence the term “supposed father” given in Luke 3:23.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no conflict with the Catholic Church and true science. Charlatans manipulate data to their own agenda, but reason can show that Genesis is true as written. God created the world in six days, and on the seventh He rested.

There is a conflict with miracles and science. Miracles are by definition unexplainable by science. This is why I just don’t understand why people try to mix the two. What’s the point of trying to reconcile creation with science when you still have things like Jesus walking on water, Lot’s wife instantly turning to a pillar of salt, Jesus being resurrected after being dead for 3 days, and a talking donkey?

 

[trophy33]

What’s the point of trying to reconcile creation with science when you still have things like Jesus walking on water, Lot’s wife instantly turning to a pillar of salt, Jesus being resurrected after being dead for 3 days, and a talking donkey?

Because the creation is here to be examined and understood, while short-term miracles like you mentioned are out of reach.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just like digging into evolutions claims show it to be increasingly unlikely

I just showed you that one of your objections was based on a failure to understand what the evidence is. Don't tell us how good your objections are going to be; put them up here, an we'll see how they stand up to a close look.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, that excuse won't work, either. Luke's genealogy is also for Joseph.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

The oldest explanation is that it’s possible that Mary had no brothers to be heirs to their family inheritance so Eli or Heli adopted Joseph as his son in law and Joseph took on their family name.

That's not a good excuse, either. In that time, Jews did not have last names.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Hence this from the Vatican:

In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
From INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION Communion and Stewardship; Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

There was also a birth control commission Turns out that was not magisterial teaching. To your post we say, so what?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There is a conflict with miracles and science. Miracles are by definition unexplainable by science. This is why I just don’t understand why people try to mix the two. What’s the point of trying to reconcile creation with science when you still have things like Jesus walking on water, Lot’s wife instantly turning to a pillar of salt, Jesus being resurrected after being dead for 3 days, and a talking donkey?

True science can be reconciled with the miracles of God, because true science follows the evidence wherever it leads.

Naturalism, of which evolution is a part, is not true science, because it ignores the light of reason in favor of an explanation that does not include God, despite the overwhelming odds against their theory. It is not new, Darwin did not suddenly discover a logical explanation after the “myths” of Genesis. The reason that they hold to evolution so tightly is that it is not science, but a repackaged old religion dressed up as science

We know it as paganism or deism. This is where god, or “the gods” are powerful beings but impersonal and aloof to the human condition. Pagans try to imitate their gods thinking them to be wise, but they deny the true God and thereby become fools. Their foolishness is demonstrated by the refusal to consider alternatives despite increasing odds against the truth of their statements.
I am tired of naturalists controlling science by practicing the pagan religion. That is not science. It is willful disregard for the truth despite evidence to the contrary. The same way Jesus was angry with the Pharisees that said He cast out Demons by Beelzebub, despite evidence of His divine goodness, it is frustrating to talk with these people.

All I can say is Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing. The ones that claim to know God, yet glorify Him not as God, they are the ones I fear for the most. Genesis is the literal words of God as dictated to Moses on Sinai. They are trustworthy and true, literally

The Pagans don’t want you to see how, and they mock you to scorn if you believe Genesis rather than them, but if you decide to believe them rather than Genesis, they turn on you and rend you, as Our Lord says swine will do if pearls are cast before them.

No I believe the words of God as written, as they are the words of the Master. I salute the SDA again because they hold the scriptures and do not want to explain them away, as some of those I would like to call my brothers are wont to do. Let’s look at the Pagan argument, and maybe you can understand what is happening.

They say that DNA is present in all living things and uses the same alphabet, so all living things came from earlier living things. Languages have protolanguages and they develop over time just like living things. Languages with a common alphabet develop into more modern languages.
Sounds good, but does it pass closer inspection?

Most of the evolutionary experiments are along the lines of a linguist discovering that Latin and Italian use the same alphabet, so Italian came from Latin. WOW that’s right evolution must be true.

Wrong, that is jumping to conclusions. Did the language develop in the letters and paper alone? Of course not, it was in the intelligent minds that were speaking and writing the language that changed it. Sanskrit did not become Latin and Latin did not become French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian. The speakers changed the language

We know that the genetic code is more than just DNA. If it were one language across species the evolutionists might have a point but not conclusively. That is not the case however, the genetic code has multiple variations between species and even in the cells themselves(mitochondrial code vs nuclear code). In order for one species to give rise to another, their genetic code would have to speak the same language, but they don’t. They may have the same alphabet, but there are many different genetic languages. The presence of those genetic languages implies intelligence. We recognize that intelligence as God. Just as intelligent speakers changed the language of Sanskrit to what we speak today. God made His creatures to speak different languages. They can make minor changes within a species that speaks the same genetic language, but it cannot go from one species of one genetic language to another species with a different genetic language , without massive changes to the code, not just an simple base pair mutation. It just doesn’t happen, but evolutionists will tell you it does, because they refuse to believe in God or hold a distorted view of Him, we call that blasphemy. God is not a disinterested overlord. He loves us and gave Himself for us.

They can believe paganism and evolution if they wish. God gives them free will. For Christians to do that however, is very problematic. Christ warns us that friendship with the world is enmity with God. He likens it to eating and drinking with the drunken. Consider this scripture from Luke 12.



31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. 32- Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom [Luke 12:32] 33 Sell what you possess and give alms. Make to yourselves bags which grow not old, a treasure in heaven which faileth not: where no thief approacheth, nor moth corrupteth. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 35 Let your loins be girt, and lamps burning in your hands.
36 And you yourselves like to men who wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately. 37 Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh, shall find watching. Amen I say to you, that he will gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and passing will minister unto them. 38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. 39 But this know ye, that if the householder did know at what hour the thief would come, he would surely watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. 40 Be you then also ready: for at what hour you think not, the Son of man will come.
41 And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all? 42 And the Lord said: Who (thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them their measure of wheat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come, he shall find so doing. 44 Verily I say to you, he will set him over all that he possesseth. 45 But if that servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a coming; and shall begin to strike the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk:
46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. 49 I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled? 50 And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished?


Complete knowledge of biology is not required to enter the kingdom of heaven. If it were, we would probably all be damned. Friendship with the world is certainly not required to enter the kingdom of heaven, and it could be a characteristic that can keep you out. What fellowship do we have with darkness?

Teach your children the commands of God and obey them yourselves. It will go better for you if you do. Let the dead bury their dead. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord

Peace be with you all, may the Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ fill your hearts, He is faithful and true, the Word of God. Fear not the insults of dead pagan religion dressed up as science. They will hate you as they hated Jesus, He told us so Himself. Be faithful unto death, and He will give you a crown of life

 

[The Barbarian]

Hence this from the Vatican:

In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
From INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION Communion and Stewardship; Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

There was also a birth control commission Turns out that was not magisterial teaching.

You've been misled by anti-Catholic propaganda. Commissions are not magisterial teachings, although, as Communion and Stewardship demonstrates, their reports can be.

Critics who reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception often cite the conclusions of the 1966 Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. They say Pope Paul VI ignored the research of the very commission he set up to determine if contraception is immoral. They say members of the commission agreed almost unanimously that the Church should allow Catholics to use birth control in some cases.

This tactic is supposed to make the pope look like a stubborn traditionalist who clung to an outdated doctrine in spite of what the brightest minds in the Church had to say. However, when we examine what transpired during the years this commission met, as well as the nature of the report it released, we see that it provides no justification for dissenting against the teaching on contraception promulgated in Humanae Vitae.

The Myth of the Birth Control Commission

Pope St. Paul VI has been ridiculed for going against the recommendation of "experts" on contraception. But why were they assembled in the first place?

www.catholic.com

Humanae Vitae is on the website. Your commission is not.

To your post we say, so what?

To a non-Catholic, nothing much.

 

[The Barbarian]

True science can be reconciled with the miracles of God, because true science follows the evidence wherever it leads.

You might as well say "true plumbing can be reconciled with the miracles of God because plumbing follows the evidence wherever it leads. Science and plumbing can't say anything at all about God. But scientists and plumbers can. If this puzzles you, we've located the problem.

Naturalism, of which evolution is a part, is not true science, because it ignores the light of reason in favor of an explanation that does not include God,

Newton, for example, did not include God in his theory of gravitiation, just as Darwin didn't include God in his theory of evolution. However, Newton did acknowledge God as the Creator of the Solar System, just as Darwin did acknowledge God as the Creator of living things. They just couldn't put God into a scientific theory.

It is not new, Darwin did not suddenly discover a logical explanation after the “myths” of Genesis.

In fact, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't a random process. And the reason you think of Genesis as "myths" is because you want to make it into a science text, and it can't be that.

The reason that they hold to evolution so tightly is that it is not science,

If you knew what a science is, you'd know better. Darwin looked at nature and asked some questions. He came up with a hypothesis and started looking to see if it was valid. The resulting theory has four points. Which of those has since been not been verified by evidence. I won't insult your intelligence by telling you what they are, I'm sure you know. Tell us which of them has been falsified and how.

but a repackaged old religion dressed up as science

God is not some little Middle Eastern deity making a tree here and bird there. He's the Creator of the universe, who made nature to bring forth life as He created it to do. Why not just accept His creation as it is?

They can believe paganism and evolution if they wish. God gives them free will. For Christians to do that however, is very problematic.

Fortunately for you, you won't go to hell merely for being a creationist. God doesn't care what you think of evolution, any more than he cares what you think of photosynthesis. But you do put your soul at risk if you make an idol of your new beliefs and insist that others must believe them to be saved. Avoid that.

What fellowship do we have with darkness?

Good question. Many, if not most, creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. The darkness is in making an idol.

Fear not the insults of dead pagan religion dressed up as science.

Most creationists, as far as I can see, do not claim their religion is a science. There are some, but I think they are less pagan than in error. Only some of them hate us, but then Jesus said the world would hate us.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a conflict with miracles and science. Miracles are by definition unexplainable by science. This is why I just don’t understand why people try to mix the two. What’s the point of trying to reconcile creation with science when you still have things like Jesus walking on water, Lot’s wife instantly turning to a pillar of salt, Jesus being resurrected after being dead for 3 days, and a talking donkey?

Nothing in science denies miracles or the supernatural in general. It just can't comment on them. This is why people of all sorts of faiths (or no faith at all) can do science.