I’m not going to try to argue for an old earth and a relatively localised deluge but I thought maybe DNA-related studies might add to the debate.
I’m from the tribe of Cas and we are direct descendants of Brian Boru’s family and as such have a unique DNA haplogroup cluster known as Irish type III. On a larger scale the R1b1b haplogroup is thought to represent ethnic groups that have a common origin from several ethnic groupings that originated in the Central Asian step nearly 10,000 years ago. They supposedly migrated into Europe in successive waves and replaced/merged with indigenous European neolithic peoples. I’m certainly not going to argue that deep ancestry DNA studies are reliable timewise or anything along those lines but it is something that is worth studying for secular reasons and may have some bearing on spiritual matters.
I asked one of my friends about how he compiles his beliefs w/ evolution when it goes against Genesis. He wrote:
“It’s true but I think they would be able to reconcile that very easily at least in Catholicism. Catholics believe he was perfectly human and perfectly divine at the same time. They think he was human and god simultaneously. He quoted genesis which turns out is wrong but that’s because he was a jew and believed in the Torah. He made a human mistake. It would be no problem because original sin doesn’t have to be something that doesn’t exist if it didn’t happen the way the bible outlined. Original sin can be taken as an esoteric concept not as a literal concept which doesn’t make it any less true in the eyes of a believer. That’s from a catholic point of view. Evangelicals believe that every word of the bible is true and literal so i don’t know how they would reconcile it.”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I asked one of my friends about how he compiles his beliefs w/ evolution when it goes against Genesis. He wrote:
“It’s true but I think they would be able to reconcile that very easily at least in Catholicism. Catholics believe he was perfectly human and perfectly divine at the same time. They think he was human and god simultaneously. He quoted genesis which turns out is wrong but that’s because he was a jew and believed in the Torah. He made a human mistake. It would be no problem because original sin doesn’t have to be something that doesn’t exist if it didn’t happen the way the bible outlined. Original sin can be taken as an esoteric concept not as a literal concept which doesn’t make it any less true in the eyes of a believer. That’s from a catholic point of view. Evangelicals believe that every word of the bible is true and literal so i don’t know how they would reconcile it.”[/quote]Great post
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I asked one of my friends about how he compiles his beliefs w/ evolution when it goes against Genesis. He wrote:
“It’s true but I think they would be able to reconcile that very easily at least in Catholicism. Catholics believe he was perfectly human and perfectly divine at the same time. They think he was human and god simultaneously. He quoted genesis which turns out is wrong but that’s because he was a jew and believed in the Torah. He made a human mistake. It would be no problem because original sin doesn’t have to be something that doesn’t exist if it didn’t happen the way the bible outlined. Original sin can be taken as an esoteric concept not as a literal concept which doesn’t make it any less true in the eyes of a believer. That’s from a catholic point of view. Evangelicals believe that every word of the bible is true and literal so i don’t know how they would reconcile it.”[/quote]
Of course I do. That’s why I said this on the last page:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not talking about evolution, there’s mountains of evidence to support micro and macro evolution.
[/quote]
There are also mountains of evidence to support creation. (Leave micro out of it. We both agree on that)
See Raj, the evidence IS there. But it IS evidence and nothing more. Evidence must be interpreted ESPECIALLY when speaking of the distant unobservable, unexperimentable (is that a word?) past.
[u]For instance the fossil record is often cited as evidence for evolution. And under the confines of that theory it is interpreted to support that theory.
The creation model also cites the fossil record as evidence. But it’s interpreted under the confines of the creation theory.[/u][/quote]
This is part of the reason, a small part, I’m easing out of here. I don’t have time for disingenuousness debate.[/quote]
There’s nothing disingenuous about it. I’m inviting you to explain your position am I not? I think the fossil record clearly shows gradual speciation and I think the studies I linked earlier clearly show rapid speciation. If you know something I don’t, be my guest. That’s not to say I’m going to immediately change positions. I will almost certainly challenge your position, but then again what good am I to Christianity if I am easily persuaded?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I asked one of my friends about how he compiles his beliefs w/ evolution when it goes against Genesis. He wrote:
“It’s true but I think they would be able to reconcile that very easily at least in Catholicism. Catholics believe he was perfectly human and perfectly divine at the same time. They think he was human and god simultaneously. He quoted genesis which turns out is wrong but that’s because he was a jew and believed in the Torah. He made a human mistake. It would be no problem because original sin doesn’t have to be something that doesn’t exist if it didn’t happen the way the bible outlined. Original sin can be taken as an esoteric concept not as a literal concept which doesn’t make it any less true in the eyes of a believer. That’s from a catholic point of view. Evangelicals believe that every word of the bible is true and literal so i don’t know how they would reconcile it.”[/quote]
He didn’t make a mistake in quoting Genesis.
[/quote]No, He most certainly did not, but there is a ton of education in Raj’s post which makes it very instructive.
[quote]Multicellular Evolution Apparently Isn?t That Tough To Do and Only Takes 60 Days
Wait, I thought evolution was an interminably slow process requiring millions of years to make any noticeable difference? Apparently not if you’re yeast. A research team has just announce that it’s figured out how to evolve a single-celled organism into a multicellular animal just like a freakin’ Pokemon.
The team, from the University of Minnesota, was able to artificially evolve a culture of brewer’s yeast into it’s multicellular form basically by overfeeding it. The culture was housed in flasks and bathed in an extremely nutrient-rich medium.
Once a day, researchers would shake the flasks, then harvested the fast-sinking yeast clumps to start new cultures?the equivalent of natural selection. After just a few weeks, the yeast clumped together and after two months, the clumps had merged into multicelled organisms. What’s more, the new creatures showed cell specialization, a juvenile stage, and multicellular offspring.
“Multicellularity is the ultimate in cooperation,” said evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano, co-author of the study. “Multiple cells make make up an individual that cooperates for the benefit of the whole. Sometimes cells give up their ability to reproduce for the benefit of close kin.”
So, there you have it. The evolutionary step that expanded Life beyond amoebas probably wasn’t powered as much by some revolutionary genetic variation as it was by the bacterial equivalent of a Las Vegas buffet. [Wired - Image: Ratcliff et al./PNAS]
[/quote]