Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

[Skovand1075]

I like the late Senator John McCain's take on it-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

I like the quote also. I see God in all of creation as well. Just not as a designer. Same as I see Yahweh in humanity such as when someone shows love and mercy to others, and believe that being steward of the land is something we as a species is supposed to be doing. So I see god in nature like I see Christ in his disciples.

 

[marksman]

So you mean when you ask these scientists, instead of lying…. They say that we don’t yet know enough about abiogenesis to give you a answer… abiogenesis is separate from evolution by the way.

when it comes to abiogenesis we have seen several different potential ways chemical evolution played a role leading to life. But we don’t have enough data yet to know what was the exact variables for us since there are so many possibly variables.

The most common answer they gave me was abiogenesis but I informed them that it was not the origin of life.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Ok. So since you claim to have a bachelors degree biology…. Well let’s start with this. What’s your view. OEC? YEC? Is intelligent design part it? I’ll ignore the others, and try to have a conversation with you.

The concept of Intelligent design wasn't even being researched (to my knowledge) while I was in school, but the predominantly atheist faculty at SUSB would've hounded any researchers out the door. The case for Intelligent design is based upon the theory of evolution, because the first researchers were just secular researchers and the most basic theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin states that evolution is adaption to environment that is passed to offspring until the changes result in speciation.
The process of evolution as understood after the discovery of gene coding, transcription, and genetic mutation, is still understood to be based upon the survival of a mutation through generations of any given organism. This fundamental postulate of evolutionary theory indirectly lead to the concept of irreducible complexity.
Our basic definition of life defines living organisms as capable of converting some form of energy into biomass, and consistent reproduction of the organism. To date, science is unable to explain the evolution of the combined minimal processes necessary to meet the basic definition.
If an organism could process energy buy not reproduce itself, it wouldn't meet the definition of life and no evolution would be possible through the survival of offspring or simple division. This is a bit of an oversimplification in that the two processes I've used as the accepted basic definition of life are themselves the result of complex processes. Eg. Gene transcription, protein synthesis, energy capture and conversion, cellular transport, etc.
The mechanisms can "evolve" over generations of replication, but not without those basic functions that interact to support life in the form of organisms capable of both energy conversion to biomass, and replication.
Every organism on Earth replicates itself through the processes of gene replication and gene replication requires, to the best of my knowledge, the mediation of proteins which are themselves encoded by genes, a transport system for nucleotides, which includes functional proteins, an energy source with a specificity to be applied to conformational modifications in enzymes (also proteins) without causing random damage like protein denaturation.
To put it simply gene replication doesn't occur without protein and proteins don't exist without gene transcription.
They are mutually dependent processes. How do these evolve without the pre-existence of life?
Then there's the coincidental argument drawn from information sciences. The shortest identified protein contains only 20 amino acids, but the tertiary form of any protein in entirely dependent upon the exact amino acid sequencing, consequently those amino acids can only form the functional protein in 1 out of 20! (Factorial: 20 x19x18...x1) ways. I didn't do the calculation myself but 20! Is roughly 2.4 X 10 to the eighteenth power, and the probability of that random combination is 1 in that staggering number. A ribosome, a much more complex organelle with appreciably larger proteins is required to synthesize other proteins, and enzymes are required for gene transcription. Life makes accurate protein production through introns (transcribable subsets of alleles or chromosomal strands) and the basic building block of introns is the codon, a correct sequence of 3 nucleotides. Now, information science asks the question, "How does an information system, a language of specific coding, evolve into being?"

I think that you missed my point though. Since evolutionary science is contrary to scripture, the hearing of which is the only source of faith, then the discussion of evolution as accepted "fact" is entirely inappropriate in the context of a Christian audience not equipped to understand the enormous improbability of the spontaneous generation of life, nor the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
Denying the veracity of scripture and the teaching of Christ from the creation account, is a stumbling block to faith, a disservice to those Christians that are struggling to believe scripture, and a temptation to the same to disbelieve the word of God. This is entirely contrary to love.

 

[atpollard]

I would have a hard time classifying it as polemic… but I definitely agree that plays a role in it. It was undermining and disagreeing with other ancient Mesopotamian faiths.

I would argue that was its primary purpose … to undermine ALL other extant creation MYTHOLOGIES by setting the record straight in a manner that only I AM (the GOD that truly exists) could. Taking just one small point as an example, all other mythologies begin with two common traits … they start with the story of how the pantheon of many gods was created. Genesis 1, in contrast, opens with ONE GOD, eternally extant, who creates everything that is created (but no other gods). Thus in true polemic fashion, the first few words of the first chapter of the first book refute all mythological records of pantheons of gods and all mythologies of how gods came to exist. It is a complete break from everything that came before and a deliberate refutation of what EVERYONE ELSE held to be common knowledge.

I see Genesis 1 as less a “mythology” and more an “anti-mythology”. An affirmation of true WHO and a refutation of the false narratives on how.

 

[atpollard]

Sure. But adaptation is still just natural selection and evolution when you’re referring to morphological changes. Though very few morphological changes occur within a species lifetime. Do you mean learned behavior?

You are incorrect. I employ detection of morphological adaptations to identify frequency of inundation and saturation of the soil to locate the boundary between a wetland and an upland. Stripping of the soil matrix and accretion of organic deposits can occur within years. Cypress trees develop “knees” on the roots to assist in surviving inundation within the lifetime of the tree. Animals adapt to colors seasonally. So nature is full of physical adaptations triggered by environmental conditions.

Evolution postulates that these changes persist and lead to speciation, but all of the breeds of Dogs are still, to my reckoning, DOGS. I am outside the current vogue of redefining “species”, but I am an old fart that has been engaged in practical environmental science since Ronald Regan was president and still believes that animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring are the same species.

Thus I avoid these pointless debates (As a general rule).

 

[Skovand1075]

The concept of Intelligent design wasn't even being researched (to my knowledge) while I was in school, but the predominantly atheist faculty at SUSB would've hounded any researchers out the door. The case for Intelligent design is based upon the theory of evolution, because the first researchers were just secular researchers and the most basic theory of evolution, as proposed by Charles Darwin states that evolution is adaption to environment that is passed to offspring until the changes result in speciation.
The process of evolution as understood after the discovery of gene coding, transcription, and genetic mutation, is still understood to be based upon the survival of a mutation through generations of any given organism. This fundamental postulate of evolutionary theory indirectly lead to the concept of irreducible complexity.
Our basic definition of life defines living organisms as capable of converting some form of energy into biomass, and consistent reproduction of the organism. To date, science is unable to explain the evolution of the combined minimal processes necessary to meet the basic definition.
If an organism could process energy buy not reproduce itself, it wouldn't meet the definition of life and no evolution would be possible through the survival of offspring or simple division. This is a bit of an oversimplification in that the two processes I've used as the accepted basic definition of life are themselves the result of complex processes. Eg. Gene transcription, protein synthesis, energy capture and conversion, cellular transport, etc.
The mechanisms can "evolve" over generations of replication, but not without those basic functions that interact to support life in the form of organisms capable of both energy conversion to biomass, and replication.
Every organism on Earth replicates itself through the processes of gene replication and gene replication requires, to the best of my knowledge, the mediation of proteins which are themselves encoded by genes, a transport system for nucleotides, which includes functional proteins, an energy source with a specificity to be applied to conformational modifications in enzymes (also proteins) without causing random damage like protein denaturation.
To put it simply gene replication doesn't occur without protein and proteins don't exist without gene transcription.
They are mutually dependent processes. How do these evolve without the pre-existence of life?
Then there's the coincidental argument drawn from information sciences. The shortest identified protein contains only 20 amino acids, but the tertiary form of any protein in entirely dependent upon the exact amino acid sequencing, consequently those amino acids can only form the functional protein in 1 out of 20! (Factorial: 20 x19x18...x1) ways. I didn't do the calculation myself but 20! Is roughly 2.4 X 10 to the eighteenth power, and the probability of that random combination is 1 in that staggering number. A ribosome, a much more complex organelle with appreciably larger proteins is required to synthesize other proteins, and enzymes are required for gene transcription. Life makes accurate protein production through introns (transcribable subsets of alleles or chromosomal strands) and the basic building block of introns is the codon, a correct sequence of 3 nucleotides. Now, information science asks the question, "How does an information system, a language of specific coding, evolve into being?"

I think that you missed my point though. Since evolutionary science is contrary to scripture, the hearing of which is the only source of faith, then the discussion of evolution as accepted "fact" is entirely inappropriate in the context of a Christian audience not equipped to understand the enormous improbability of the spontaneous generation of life, nor the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies of evolutionary theory.
Denying the veracity of scripture and the teaching of Christ from the creation account, is a stumbling block to faith, a disservice to those Christians that are struggling to believe scripture, and a temptation to the same to disbelieve the word of God. This is entirely contrary to love.

You jumped around quite a bit. I think you’re choosing to turn a blind eye to the issues you bring up, such as leaping from how does abiogenesis occur after nutrient biosynthesis. What I mean is that you’re talking about gene transfer , as if that’s how amino acids developed. That may fool the uneducated but it’s a glaring issue in your statements.

As mentioned, this is about evolution not abiogenesis. It’s not even about nutrient biosynthesis. Amino acids don’t require genes to replicate. The nucleotides develop form nitrogenous bases, pentos sugars and phosphate groups. The chemical evolution involved in abiogenesis, or just protein building has its start in chemical reactions. Such as a monosaccharide like ribulose into ribose. So Hadean and it’s eon of atmospheric nitrogen is really before the convo.

so the way info is passed on from Archean’s bacteria preforming nitrogen fixation as nitrogenase breaks the NNN.
Also, it’s probably well after you left school, but the evidence points towards rna was carrying on info before dna. But as for chemicals, it’s reactions, not transferring info.

so abiogenesis starts off after chemical reactions and rna and so on. Roughly 500 million years time went on until unicellular life arose. cyanobacteria Mats popped up but really complex multicellular organism popped up 600 million ago.

So to be clear, before we had organism ( I’m assuming you mean complex multicellular organisms and dna, proteins and so on, we had chemical reactions, rna and amino acids.

So I’m aware that Intelligent design was not taught back then, but guess what, the overwhelming majority of colleges don’t teach it now. Select Christian colleges do.

but it does bring me back to my question.

Is your ID YEC or OEC?

and to your theological point.

You say that evolution is contrary to scripture? That’s false. Just like meteorology is not contrary to scripture either. What evolution is contrary you is the pseudoscience involved in OEC/YEC. So evolution is not anti biblical or anti Christian, it’s just science. What’s contrary to science is your interpretation. But your interpretation is yours, not mine. It’s not the accuracy of scripture being questioned, it’s the accuracy of your interpretation being questioned. You keep confusing your theology for the Bible. You keep confusing your faith the Bible. Evolution is not a disservice to Christians.

YEC and OEC ( subgroups of ID ) is what’s a disservice to Christians. It’s why fundamentalism, conservatism and literalistic misreadings that drives young Christians away and it evolutionary creationism that brings them back. Atheism developed because of ID type beliefs. Accepting science is definitely not contrary to love.

so can we move past abiogenesis to evolution? If not, then provide the chemical processes and science behind “ god did it” and try to do it without confusing post life vs pre life processes.

 

[Skovand1075]

You are incorrect. I employ detection of morphological adaptations to identify frequency of inundation and saturation of the soil to locate the boundary between a wetland and an upland. Stripping of the soil matrix and accretion of organic deposits can occur within years. Cypress trees develop “knees” on the roots to assist in surviving inundation within the lifetime of the tree. Animals adapt to colors seasonally. So nature is full of physical adaptations triggered by environmental conditions.

Evolution postulates that these changes persist and lead to speciation, but all of the breeds of Dogs are still, to my reckoning, DOGS. I am outside the current vogue of redefining “species”, but I am an old fart that has been engaged in practical environmental science since Ronald Regan was president and still believes that animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring are the same species.

Thus I avoid these pointless debates (As a general rule).

Good because that’s what I study as well. Which is why I can tell you are already speaking beyond what you know. You’re taking something and trying to act as if it’s something else contrary to evolution lol.
The first section is mostly nonsense.

you stated about me, “You are incorrect. I employ detection of morphological adaptations to identify frequency of inundation and saturation of the soil to locate the boundary between a wetland and an upland. Stripping of the soil matrix and accretion of organic deposits can occur within years. Cypress trees develop “knees” on the roots to assist in surviving inundation within the lifetime of the tree. Animals adapt to colors seasonally. So nature is full of physical adaptations triggered by environmental conditions.”



you employ detection of morphological adaptations ( I think you mean simply growing forms )…. That’s like pretending finding a tree growing towards sunlight is some achievement. There was not a knee-less cypress that suddenly stopped its cones and kneed ones popped up. Arguing understory woody shrubs having larger leaves to capture more sunlight as adaptation is clearly different from arguing plants evolving leaves. So I’m not even sure what you’re trying to prove…. What are you countering with that? Lifestyle and behavioral adaptation is different from morphological adaptations which the scientific worlds uses to describe events such as a basal form developing divergent traits that are better adapted to its environment and spread through natural selection. It’s not a argument for growth forms based on plant needs. Such as the biomass of aquatic plants roots traveling eastward in the pond because to the right is a waterfall…

 

[Skovand1075]

“Evolutionist” don’t argue that dogs are different species. We know they are all the same species. Breed is just another name for cultivar or selection and not a byproduct of speciation. Breeds are created through artificial selection. Subspecies are created through natural selection.

So evolution is the process of speciation because overtime a species develops into subspecies, these subspecies continue to grow behaviorally, genetically, and morphologically more distinct. Often, some go extinct while only the extant ones continue to have offspring. Over time, the subspecies grows so distinct its classified as it’s on species, and eventually may even become the head of its own clade.
For example we know that tigers and lions share common ancestry. ( or do you think they were both created fully formed ). The same way we know that a lion is related to a tiger, is the same way we know they are related to house cats and the same way we know all of those are related to hyenas and it’s the same way we know all of those descended from the same carnivore and that same carnivorous animal, some unknown species of Feliformia was there common ancestor. We see the morpholicsl similarities and the genetic ones. We also don’t find hyenas and lions or tigers during this geological era then.

 

[Dropship]

Food for thought-

 

[Charlie24]

This post is not about debating with those who don’t believe it. Plenty of forums out there. This is a place for those , typically just in college, that is feeling conflicted.

I've never been very interested in evolution. It seems to me that scientists are studying nothing more than the handiwork of God and what He has set in motion. I think they are giving a new name to what God has called nature.

More so than gaining knowledge from that study, man is seeking control from that study, if the truth were to be told.

 

[atpollard]

you employ detection of morphological adaptations ( I think you mean simply growing forms )….

No, I mean morphological adaptations:

Morphological plant adaptations are specialized structures or tissues produced by certain plants in response to inundation or saturation which normally are not observed when the plant has not been subject to conditions of inundation or saturation. These are often observed in the form of hydric adventitious roots and hypertrophied lenticels. Hydric adventitious roots are typically produced on the stem or trunk of certain plants, when inundated, as an alternative mechanism for aerobic respiration during a period of anoxia in the soil root zone. Once inundation subsides, these roots cease growth. Hydric adventitious roots are seldom observed rooted into soil. The expression of hydric adventitious roots can vary from only a few individual roots to a bushy abundance which may totally cover the stem. Hypertrophied lenticels are abnormally large lenticels which appear as expanded portions of the outer bark of stems and roots. These also appear to function as a mechanism to enhance opportunities for aerobic respiration. Look for hydric adventitious roots and hypertrophied lenticels on stems of flooded plants such as Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Ludwigia spp. (primrose willow) and Hypericum spp. (St. John's-wort). Expanded lenticels can also be found on many species of bottomland hardwood trees. Other examples of morphological plant adaptations produced in response to extended wetness are the conspicuous prop-roots of Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), the "knees" of Taxodium distichum (bald cypress), and the buttressing of tree bases as exhibited by Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (swamp tupelo), Ulmus americana (American elm) and Quercus laurifolia (swamp laurel oak). Caution: Once a morphological adaption develops it does not disappear if the site is drained and no longer functions as a wetland.​

(from FDEP, but what do they know about anything)

However, your tone illustrates both why I don’t care to discuss evolution (I must now cite journals to support my statements or just walk away … I choose to walk away because I don’t really CARE about your opinion of me) and why I generally avoid these cesspool topics.

Goodbye.

 

[atpollard]

“Evolutionist” don’t argue that dogs are different species. We know they are all the same species. Breed is just another name for cultivar or selection and not a byproduct of speciation. Breeds are created through artificial selection. Subspecies are created through natural selection.

Except for finches on Galapagos, apparently.

 

[Skovand1075]

No, I mean morphological adaptations:

Morphological plant adaptations are specialized structures or tissues produced by certain plants in response to inundation or saturation which normally are not observed when the plant has not been subject to conditions of inundation or saturation. These are often observed in the form of hydric adventitious roots and hypertrophied lenticels. Hydric adventitious roots are typically produced on the stem or trunk of certain plants, when inundated, as an alternative mechanism for aerobic respiration during a period of anoxia in the soil root zone. Once inundation subsides, these roots cease growth. Hydric adventitious roots are seldom observed rooted into soil. The expression of hydric adventitious roots can vary from only a few individual roots to a bushy abundance which may totally cover the stem. Hypertrophied lenticels are abnormally large lenticels which appear as expanded portions of the outer bark of stems and roots. These also appear to function as a mechanism to enhance opportunities for aerobic respiration. Look for hydric adventitious roots and hypertrophied lenticels on stems of flooded plants such as Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Ludwigia spp. (primrose willow) and Hypericum spp. (St. John's-wort). Expanded lenticels can also be found on many species of bottomland hardwood trees. Other examples of morphological plant adaptations produced in response to extended wetness are the conspicuous prop-roots of Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), the "knees" of Taxodium distichum (bald cypress), and the buttressing of tree bases as exhibited by Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (swamp tupelo), Ulmus americana (American elm) and Quercus laurifolia (swamp laurel oak). Caution: Once a morphological adaption develops it does not disappear if the site is drained and no longer functions as a wetland.​

(from FDEP, but what do they know about anything)

However, your tone illustrates both why I don’t care to discuss evolution (I must now cite journals to support my statements or just walk away … I choose to walk away because I don’t really CARE about your opinion of me) and why I generally avoid these cesspool topics.

Goodbye.

What you are doing is citing one form of adaptation. I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue…

I pointed out adaptation is the same thing as evolution. That you don’t typically see adaptations , as used in biology for morphology to refer to plant growth like you are using it .

Adaptation typically refers to things where a entire species is making the same move due to natural selection, and not individual behavioral changes to survive, and for plants that includes growth forms.

So all cypresses evolving to have knees is adaption. A single one growing in a specific way because of where it is , is not generally called adaption.

Eastern fence posts lizards are growing longer legs, and becoming faster, as a species, because those with shorter legs that are slower are dying because of fire ants. So the long legged faster ones are surviving, and having offspring with longer legs.

A sapling growing in a thick understory where it needs to grow tall faster and shoot up towards sunlight reslly skinny, is not what we would refer to as adaptation in the typical biology class.

So what point are you wanting to make? That you’re using adaptation is a non typical way? That somehow the way you are using it for it undermines long term Evolution? I can’t even tell what you are arguing.

 

[michaelvpardo]

You jumped around quite a bit. I think you’re choosing to turn a blind eye to the issues you bring up, such as leaping from how does abiogenesis occur after nutrient biosynthesis. What I mean is that you’re talking about gene transfer , as if that’s how amino acids developed. That may fool the uneducated but it’s a glaring issue in your statements.

As mentioned, this is about evolution not abiogenesis. It’s not even about nutrient biosynthesis. Amino acids don’t require genes to replicate. The nucleotides develop form nitrogenous bases, pentos sugars and phosphate groups. The chemical evolution involved in abiogenesis, or just protein building has its start in chemical reactions. Such as a monosaccharide like ribulose into ribose. So Hadean and it’s eon of atmospheric nitrogen is really before the convo.

so the way info is passed on from Archean’s bacteria preforming nitrogen fixation as nitrogenase breaks the NNN.
Also, it’s probably well after you left school, but the evidence points towards rna was carrying on info before dna. But as for chemicals, it’s reactions, not transferring info.

so abiogenesis starts off after chemical reactions and rna and so on. Roughly 500 million years time went on until unicellular life arose. cyanobacteria Mats popped up but really complex multicellular organism popped up 600 million ago.

So to be clear, before we had organism ( I’m assuming you mean complex multicellular organisms and dna, proteins and so on, we had chemical reactions, rna and amino acids.

So I’m aware that Intelligent design was not taught back then, but guess what, the overwhelming majority of colleges don’t teach it now. Select Christian colleges do.

but it does bring me back to my question.

Is your ID YEC or OEC?

and to your theological point.

You say that evolution is contrary to scripture? That’s false. Just like meteorology is not contrary to scripture either. What evolution is contrary you is the pseudoscience involved in OEC/YEC. So evolution is not anti biblical or anti Christian, it’s just science. What’s contrary to science is your interpretation. But your interpretation is yours, not mine. It’s not the accuracy of scripture being questioned, it’s the accuracy of your interpretation being questioned. You keep confusing your theology for the Bible. You keep confusing your faith the Bible. Evolution is not a disservice to Christians.

YEC and OEC ( subgroups of ID ) is what’s a disservice to Christians. It’s why fundamentalism, conservatism and literalistic misreadings that drives young Christians away and it evolutionary creationism that brings them back. Atheism developed because of ID type beliefs. Accepting science is definitely not contrary to love.

so can we move past abiogenesis to evolution? If not, then provide the chemical processes and science behind “ god did it” and try to do it without confusing post life vs pre life processes.

I'm not confusing anything. There are no pre life biological processes.
A biological process can not evolve independent of life.
That's impossible.

 

[Skovand1075]

So you were trying to merge chemical evolution and abiogenesis with the theory of evolution concerning speciation. I was clarifying the differences. More than once actually.

So obviously there is no biological processes before abiogenesis because biological implies living organisms.

But earlier, you were acting as if it’s the same and that it’s some kind of weak point in the theory of evolution.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." This is a foundational concept.
The major questions of life: Who we are; where did we come from; how did life begin; what is our purpose; where are we going; what happens after death; is there a God and if so, what does He expect from us? GOD gives us those answers in His Word, a supernatural message system that transcended onto the minds of chosen men. He supernaturally inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write. If one can have faith in Jesus, believing what He said and did, if there were any discrepancies about the Old Testament stories from Genesis to Malachi, then HE WOULD HAVE CORRECTED THEM. And since we do believe that He is the Author of LIFE, He was there and preserved His word accurately. Why would the Creator, Who desires for us to have a relationship with Him, allow for myths and distortion corrupts His message to us? Is He not on control? Yes, this exactly what sovereignty means.
If one thinks this story is a myth, than they can use that same mindset on any other miraculous stories in the Bible. They can tear apart Jesus with theories, junk science, give all sorts of human logic and reasons to discredit just about any doctrine. If the begining was myth, likely the middle and ending is as well, they may postulate. "Let's be serious my distinguished colleagues, men of science, when a person is dead for a few days, he is dead and it is just scientifically impossible for that person to come back to life. We have history, billions of people who have died and so we can assume this is also myth."
If you dispute a literal basic interpretation of Genesis, that God created everything finished, then your faith in Christ may be questionable and at best wavering. Doubts, like Thomas had, can easily dismantle your faith.
When tough times come, your faith will be tested and if the roots are not deep and it has not been nourished, it can wither and die and blow away in the wind.

 

[Skovand1075]

You stayed this.

“The major questions of life: Who we are; where did we come from; how did life begin; what is our purpose; where are we going; what happens after death; is there a God and if so, what does He expect from us? “

That’s you’re questions. That’s not mine and that’s not the questions the ancient Mesopotamians, which included the Jews, seemed to have all had. Not a single focus in genesis is magnifying human origins. None of it is about the afterlife either.

You then stated this.

“ GOD gives us those answers in His Word, a supernatural message system that transcended onto the minds of chosen men. He supernaturally inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write. If one can have faith in Jesus, believing what He said and did, if there were any discrepancies about the Old Testament stories from Genesis to Malachi, then HE WOULD HAVE CORRECTED THEM. And since we do believe that He is the Author of LIFE, He was there and preserved His word accurately. “

You’ll have to provide the verses that states all of that. It’s not in the Bible. Either is inerrancy and so on. You’re presenting it as if the Holy Spirit took over the men and possessed them forcing them to write word for word what he wanted. That’s also not in the Bible. It says it inspired them. It said that they are god breathed. We see each one written with their own style, vocabulary and paradigm.

You mentioned it was preserved perfectly. How is that true? The current Bible is made up of thousands of manuscripts. Many starting slightly different things. That’s why we have numerous bibles. Right now there are is the catholic Bible, the Coptic Bible , the Lutheran collections and the most recent version, the Protestant Bible. In addition to various acceptance of books, many books have different endings or longer from longer stories. The Bible itself mentions stories in it we no longer have I’m such as quotes from Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and Jasher.

You stated this.

“If one thinks this story is a myth, than they can use that same mindset on any other miraculous stories in the Bible. They can tear apart Jesus with theories, junk science, give all sorts of human logic and reasons to discredit just about any doctrine. “

That’s silly. One can also recognize it’s clearly a myth and still accept the story of Jesus. After all, essentially all evolutionary creationist , theists who accept evolution and believe in Yahweh and Jesus and accepts the Bible as true still believes in Jesus and so on. That would be like if I said if you don’t take revelation literally then that means you may not take Jesus literally. It’s a false argument.

I recognize Jesus and the gospels as being historical, and I recognize genesis 1-11 being wrote as a myth.

I listed several books up above along with podcasts by biblical scholars. I suggest looking at counter arguments, and then deciding what you believe. But regardless of what you believe, it does not change the genre and intended message of genesis 1-11.

So I’ll ask you the same question I asked others. Why does Revelation 21 state that there is no sea in the restored earth?

 

[Skovand1075]

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." This is a foundational concept.
The major questions of life: Who we are; where did we come from; how did life begin; what is our purpose; where are we going; what happens after death; is there a God and if so, what does He expect from us? GOD gives us those answers in His Word, a supernatural message system that transcended onto the minds of chosen men. He supernaturally inspired men to write exactly what He wanted them to write. If one can have faith in Jesus, believing what He said and did, if there were any discrepancies about the Old Testament stories from Genesis to Malachi, then HE WOULD HAVE CORRECTED THEM. And since we do believe that He is the Author of LIFE, He was there and preserved His word accurately. Why would the Creator, Who desires for us to have a relationship with Him, allow for myths and distortion corrupts His message to us? Is He not on control? Yes, this exactly what sovereignty means.
If one thinks this story is a myth, than they can use that same mindset on any other miraculous stories in the Bible. They can tear apart Jesus with theories, junk science, give all sorts of human logic and reasons to discredit just about any doctrine. If the begining was myth, likely the middle and ending is as well, they may postulate. "Let's be serious my distinguished colleagues, men of science, when a person is dead for a few days, he is dead and it is just scientifically impossible for that person to come back to life. We have history, billions of people who have died and so we can assume this is also myth."
If you dispute a literal basic interpretation of Genesis, that God created everything finished, then your faith in Christ may be questionable and at best wavering. Doubts, like Thomas had, can easily dismantle your faith.
When tough times come, your faith will be tested and if the roots are not deep and it has not been nourished, it can wither and die and blow away in the wind.

Let’s also be honest with this.

my faith is very secure. My faith is unwavering. My faith does not require me to try to change the genre of texts, or ignore reality. It’s not my faith that is unstable. It’s the faith of those that reject sound biblical hermeneutics in order to make the text match their concordistic paradigm. If evolution was proven true to y’all, it’s y’all whose faith seems like it would waver. I’ve stood at that doorway and came through it with a faith stronger than ever and perfectly intact.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Let’s also be honest with this.

my faith is very secure. My faith is unwavering. My faith does not require me to try to change the genre of texts, or ignore reality. It’s not my faith that is unstable. It’s the faith of those that reject sound biblical hermeneutics in order to make the text match their concordistic paradigm. If evolution was proven true to y’all, it’s y’all whose faith seems like it would waver. I’ve stood at that doorway and came through it with a faith stronger than ever and perfectly intact.

Hermeneutics? A young child can understand Gen. 1 & 2. It's straight forward, put in simple everyday language.

Day 1 - And God said, “Let there be light,”
>>The earth spinning around on its axis with light shining from one direction obviously separates the light from the darkness on one side.
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
>> Children learn this simple concept eforw they go to school.

Day 2 - He made the atmosphere, separating the waters below from waters above. Oceans, lakes and dry land were formed.

Day 3 - All botanicals were created, finished. I would imagine trees with fruit on them already, water melons ready to be eaten. Three days later Adam and Even would likely get hungry. "What would like to eat honey? I don't know, I've never eaten anything, I was born yesterday you know. I know, my side ribs are kind of sore from that. Language? They communicated? God gave them language instantly. Other languages were created later on in Babylon and then evolved from there but make no mistake, they did 't wake up one day and utter ugg. They talked with God.
He told them to give names to the animals and botanicals. Adam was a genius, photographic memory, a perfect physical human. Eve was all the beauty we see in women today all in one, but perfect as well.
"Eve, I just named this fruit, I call it a peach, try it ... emmm."

Day 4 - The sun, moon and stars.
And btw, after every day, the familiar construct of a day is reiterated, just so you don't get confused and think this was an (epoch of time). "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
>> It should be within your reason to understand that the botanicals _ made on the 3rd day _ would need the sun made on the 4th day. They could not survive for epochs of time without it.
So you either have to discard the 1st book of the Bible or drastically distort it to fit the flawed TOE. But you already have, you called it myth. And you presume God allowed the first book about life, His creation to be a myth. And I guess to you, the Creator of the Universe is not capable of ensuring that His Word to mankind is delivered and passed down accurately and uncorrected. I have heard scholars came that at least the New Testament is 99.99 % pure with only about 400 words in question that do not effect any doctrine. I believe God protected His Love Letter to us throughout the ages. It is crucial that He did.

Day 5 - All living creatures (kinds) in the sea and lakes and birds in the sky were created. He programmed how to live get food and mate, to be fruitful and multiply. He designed each one uniquely, different as they contribute to and are part of His ecosystem - a finished system, that He claimed was good. If it wasn't complete, He would not have said that nor rested on the 7th day.

Day 6 - All living creatures, the animal kingdom on land and finally man were created.

"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'
Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.' "

There are no details of how He did it. That would require hundreds of volumes of information that we would not understand since the missing parts of the formula are beyond this tangible physical realm and in God's mind alone. But don't doubt that He did it this way and not through some long process. No, He was specific, an evening and morning meant ONE DAY. The sun rules the day and the moon the night.
A child can understand this, no hermeneutics needed here.

 

[Skovand1075]

Hermeneutics? A young child can understand Gen. 1 & 2. It's straight forward, put in simple everyday language.

Day 1 - And God said, “Let there be light,”
>>The earth spinning around on its axis with light shining from one direction obviously separates the light from the darkness on one side.
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
>> Children learn this simple concept eforw they go to school.

Day 2 - He made the atmosphere, separating the waters below from waters above. Oceans, lakes and dry land were formed.

Day 3 - All botanicals were created, finished. I would imagine trees with fruit on them already, water melons ready to be eaten. Three days later Adam and Even would likely get hungry. "What would like to eat honey? I don't know, I've never eaten anything, I was born yesterday you know. I know, my side ribs are kind of sore from that. Language? They communicated? God gave them language instantly. Other languages were created later on in Babylon and then evolved from there but make no mistake, they did 't wake up one day and utter ugg. They talked with God.
He told them to give names to the animals and botanicals. Adam was a genius, photographic memory, a perfect physical human. Eve was all the beauty we see in women today all in one, but perfect as well.
"Eve, I just named this fruit, I call it a peach, try it ... emmm."

Day 4 - The sun, moon and stars.
And btw, after every day, the familiar construct of a day is reiterated, just so you don't get confused and think this was an (epoch of time). "And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
>> It should be within your reason to understand that the botanicals _ made on the 3rd day _ would need the sun made on the 4th day. They could not survive for epochs of time without it.
So you either have to discard the 1st book of the Bible or drastically distort it to fit the flawed TOE. But you already have, you called it myth. And you presume God allowed the first book about life, His creation to be a myth. And I guess to you, the Creator of the Universe is not capable of ensuring that His Word to mankind is delivered and passed down accurately and uncorrected. I have heard scholars came that at least the New Testament is 99.99 % pure with only about 400 words in question that do not effect any doctrine. I believe God protected His Love Letter to us throughout the ages. It is crucial that He did.

Day 5 - All living creatures (kinds) in the sea and lakes and birds in the sky were created. He programmed how to live get food and mate, to be fruitful and multiply. He designed each one uniquely, different as they contribute to and are part of His ecosystem - a finished system, that He claimed was good. If it wasn't complete, He would not have said that nor rested on the 7th day.

Day 6 - All living creatures, the animal kingdom on land and finally man were created.

"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'
Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.' "

There are no details of how He did it. That would require hundreds of volumes of information that we would not understand since the missing parts of the formula are beyond this tangible physical realm and in God's mind alone. But don't doubt that He did it this way and not through some long process. No, He was specific, an evening and morning meant ONE DAY. The sun rules the day and the moon the night.
A child can understand this, no hermeneutics needed here.

So simple a child could understand it huh? Yet so many of y’all are so completely missing it. No contextual analysis, no genre mentions, not patterns and so on. I listed a handful of books and podcasts. You may want to check them out.