Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[4WD]

You really don't have a clue, do you?.  Where is the sun and how far away is it?  What has God told you about that?  Apparently nothing.  But He has revealed it to others who have paid attention and studied it.  That you haven't doesn't change the truth.

[Alan]

The problem here is that you and so many others have decided that the written word, God's special revelation, is the only revelation we have from God.  That is simply not true.  We have the general revelation revealed in His creation.  Your assumption is that something is true only if it is explicitly stated in the written word.  And that is false.

Psa 19:1  For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19  because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

So in answer to your question.  Yes, God and science.  Physically man is an animal, spiritually he is not.


So God told you that man is an animal. And the scientists also told you that.

Of course what God said of man is not that man is an animal nor a special animal.

For sure it is the scientist who told you that man is an animal.

Yes God is revealed in His creation. And how does that answer the question. Did God, by revelation in creation, tell you that man is an animal? Besides, the things about God that is revealed in creation is His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, such as are plain to us, and does not require one to be a scientist to see.

So, the scientist told you and that is where your belief that man is an animal is coming from.   

It's difficult to deny when man and other species are so closely related in terms of biological structure, our uniqueness is actually minimal when the big picture is viewed from an objective standpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/

[AVZ]

It's difficult to deny when man and other species are so closely related in terms of biological structure, our uniqueness is actually minimal when the big picture is viewed from an objective standpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/

Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.
From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.

[AVZ]

You really don't have a clue, do you?.  Where is the sun and how far away is it?  What has God told you about that?  Apparently nothing.  But He has revealed it to others who have paid attention and studied it.  That you haven't doesn't change the truth.

You are confusing evolution with mathematics.

[4WD]

Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.
From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.

More of that really bad AVZ logic.

[Michael2012]

4WD, I hope that you did not intentionally skip answering these in my post at Reply #519.

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

What do you say is the breath of life? Did God, to the animal, gave the breath of life?

Consider Eve.

Gen. 2:23 And Adam said:

"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

Does this verse even suggest of Eve as to have evolved from Adam or have been produced in man? That, the male human being produced the female human being or in the male human being, the female evolved or what?

[4WD]

You are confusing evolution with mathematics.

Au Contraire, it is you who are confusing theology with science.

[tooldtocare]

Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
Humans have been humans since making our first step on this planet.

Earth was formed 4.543 billion years ago

The earth was covered entirely in ice 2.6 million years ago
(climate change debate is over)

The first human walked on this planet 200,000 years ago


So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

It was not evolution that transformed us into what we are today, it was the
seed of life that visitors "planted" on this planet.

Just as we will do on another life supporting planet in our near future.

We are aliens on our own planet

The question remaining is when will they say hello? 

[Alan]

 

[Amo]

test

[Alan]

test

It worked! 

[The Barbarian]

Yep, you may also be interested to know that humans and banana's share 50% of their DNA.

In functional genes, probably a bit more than that.   We have more genes in common with bacteria than genes by which we differ.

He're's the cool thing:

If you arrange all living things in a diagram according to how closely related they are in DNA, you will end up with almost exactly the same tree of life that Linnaeus made without knowing anything about DNA or evolution.   

You have a bit more than half your DNA in common with plants.    Why?   because plants and humans are eukaryotes, and have a common ancestor after diverging from prokaryotes (like bacteria).

From an objective standpoint, you are in fact half a banana.

Watermelons are over 90% water by mass.    Clouds are close to 100% water by mass.   Watermelons are not nine-tenths of a cloud, however.

[Amo]

http://www.icr.org/article/10137

Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years. 

Research led by Lund University in Sweden used FTIR to find original molecular bonds still intact inside fossilized leaf wax. The technique detects stretches in specific chemical bonds.

Then the team compared the waxy cuticle that somehow persists in leaf fossils with the same cuticle molecules found in their living counterparts. Many of the scan results showed a match, even after all the years those fossils remained underground. The team published their results in Nature: Ecology & Evolution.1

[AVZ]

http://www.icr.org/article/10137

You should read up on the discovery of soft tissue in fossils, the discovery of muscle material, blood vessels and even red blood cells.
Those were found in fossils that supposedly are millions of years old. It is impossible that this tissue material survived that long, and it is proof that the fossils are much younger than assumed, making the dating methods we use highly suspect.
You don't hear a lot about this because it's embarrassing to the evolution theory.

[Amo]

http://creationdino.blogspot.com/2015/09/evolution-theorys-biggest-blow-wilsons.html

Wilson's Law of Evolution: The total lack of fossil evidence of the primary component of evolution, "mutation", proves the theory of evolution to be false. The fact of many fossils of the same creatures exist but no record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed defeats evolution at the stage of primary supposition. No fossil record of the statistically-demanded billions of mutations which did not succeed proves mutation from one species into another never occurred. Period.

[AVZ]

In functional genes, probably a bit more than that.

Watermelons are over 90% water by mass.    Clouds are close to 100% water by mass.   Watermelons are not nine-tenths of a cloud, however.

My statement about the banana was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but thank you for making it an issue.

You say that watermelons and clouds share a common treat, but that does not make them the same thing.
Can you claim that since watermelons and clouds have a common ancestor, water, they are therefore in same family?

In my book your statement would be a statement against evolution, humans and apes share a common treat...but that does not make them the same thing, or even related.
Besides that, the fact that life forms share DNA and are therefore related, has already been debunked scientifically. It just takes a lot of time for evolutionists to say it out loud.

Have a look at this famous DNA of yours, the claim that since humans and chimps share 98.5% of it...they must have a common ancestor.

1. Some time after DNA was discovered back in the 1950's, science found that of all that DNA we have only 2% was actual functional DNA.
And all the evolutionists jumped up and claimed: See all that useless DNA, these are leftovers from evolution and it is undeniable proof that evolution is true. They called it "junk DNA".

2. Science discovered that the second strand of DNA was doing absolutely nothing. Again proof of evolution

3. Then science discovered that it was not 98% of useless DNA...it was more like 95% useless DNA. And evolutionists claimed that maybe some more functional DNA was going to be found, but it was absolutely impossible it would be a whole lot more. Again it was undeniable proof of evolution.

4. More functional DNA was being discovered however and the 95% of useless DNA quickly turned into 50%. On top of that it was discovered that the second strand of DNA was in fact operational as well. Yet the term "junk DNA" was continuously being used as proof of evolution, undeniable.

5. Today it has been found that there most likely is no "junk DNA" at all. We just have not discovered the exact function of some segments. And the whole "junk DNA theory" that was absolute proof of evolution has fallen flat on it's face.


So there you are posting in your response "In functional genes, probably a bit more than that"
You have in fact no proof that there is such a thing as genes that have no function, and the common census is that these "useless" sections are either highly complex or a genetic defect.
Science has effectively disproven its own claim of evolution.

What has been discovered is also that the amount of DNA one shares, bears no relevance to what is actually produces or does!
The 1%-2% difference in DNA between humans and chimps can be crucial in the actual function of the other 98%.
There literally are trillions of ways amino acids can be formed, from different parts of the DNA strand, and the options are mind boggling.
Amino acids can be folded in numerous ways, making the coding not only 2 dimensional, but 3 and even 4 dimensional, every new fold creation a complete different result.
And then a whole lot of DNA is used for communication purpose. They direct other parts, which in turn can direct other parts.
Science has not even scratched the surface of it.

The claim that humans and chimps are related because they share common DNA is completely debunked by science.
You have as much chance that you are related to a chimp as a chimp has to be related to a walnut!
Back in the days the evolutionists were claiming that DNA was going to give them all the answers and evolution would be established fact.
DNA however has turned out to be exactly the opposite of what evolutionists were hoping for.

If there is one thing DNA has done, it is that it has proven the following:
- DNA cannot rewrite itself. The genetic code cannot produce a new code that produces another species.
- DNA must have originated from intelligence
- The chance that the different segments of the DNA strands came together by natural processes is abysmally small, it is trillions of times less likely than the evolutionary process itself.

[Alan]

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


Here is one from a Christian scientist that confirms that soft tissue can survive for millions of years.

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say


Soft tissue has indeed been confirmed to have survived millions of years but if you try hard enough I'm sure you can find some "research" to the contrary 

[Amo]

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


Here is one from a Christian scientist that confirms that soft tissue can survive for millions of years.

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say


Soft tissue has indeed been confirmed to have survived millions of years but if you try hard enough I'm sure you can find some "research" to the contrary 

Nothing has been confirmed to have survived millions of years, but in the minds of those who insist it is so, to support their own chosen views of how it all came about. A theory has been put forth as to how it could have happened, by someone who refuses to consider anything other than countless millions of years, that is all. Scientists are not God, what they speak is not the word of God, and they continually change their minds according to evidence or personal preference as can be easily deduced by anyone studying their findings and or claims throughout history.

No one knows how long the process described could actually preserve anything. Nor can it be demonstrated in any way shape or form short of being around the millions of years such would require, to demonstrate the same. Nor do the actions of a scientist with intelligence, exact purpose and intent unto a desired effect, and the controlled environment and process they themselves create for their experiment, ever represent random chance natural occurrences. It is again and always a simple case of one trying to prove what they have already chosen to believe, not unbiased scientific experimentation and observation of what real evidence suggests.

In the end it is all about faith. Who and or what is your faith in? God's word, or fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced observations.

[4WD]

In the end it is all about faith. Who and or what is your faith in? God's word, or fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced observations.

Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things?  No.  And therein lies the problem.  It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means.  And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means.  And you can't prove otherwise.

So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.

[Alan]

I loved this from the BioLogos site;

"I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world."

[Amo]

Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things?  No.  And therein lies the problem.  It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means.  And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means.  And you can't prove otherwise.

So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.

Test

[Amo]

It seems I cannot quote and reply to 4WD. Been trying for a few days now, just won't work. I'll try something else. I have a response to your last two responses to me 4WD, they just won't go through. Every time I try, i'm told the thread no longer exists or has been moved. If I just write the word test though, it goes through. Strange stuff.

[4WD]

It seems I cannot quote and reply to 4WD. Been trying for a few days now, just won't work. I'll try something else. I have a response to your last two responses to me 4WD, they just won't go through. Every time I try, i'm told the thread no longer exists or has been moved. If I just write the word test though, it goes through. Strange stuff.

It is probably a message from God telling you that 4WD is right and that that you should agree with him.      

[th1b.taylor]

Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things?  No.  And therein lies the problem.  It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means.  And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means.  And you can't prove otherwise.

So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.

Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith!  Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least.  We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.

You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.

Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.

[Amo]

It is probably a message from God telling you that 4WD is right and that that you should agree with him.      

If that was the way it worked, there would be an awful lot of silent people in the world.

[4WD]

Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith!  Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least.  We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.

You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.

Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.

You think young earth creationism is a basic tenant of the faith?  That is really, really sad.  And that from one in constant conversation with God; all that much more so. 

[Amo]

Is your interpretation of God's word anything more than fallen humanities faulty and prejudiced view of things?  No.  And therein lies the problem.  It is not about faith and it is almost never about what God's word says; rather it is about what someone thinks God's word means.  And some of course think you are likely wrong about what God's word concerning creation means.  And you can't prove otherwise.

So it is not really about faith in God; rather it is about faith in your own interpretation.

What good would the word of God be 4WD, if anyone and everyone is able and allowed to make it say whatever they wish? Why would the bible itself speak so often about lies and deception, if in fact there really are no lies or deception, because there is no real standard of truth? If all are free and OK to make the word of God out to say whatever they wish, then there is no standard for any judgment, and all are saved regardless of what they believe or do.

If people such as yourself can completely deny the validity of large portions of scripture, or change their apparent meaning to whatever you wish, then the same freedom must be afforded everyone else. Unless of course you claim to be a prophet of God with new light. In which case of course, that new light should include a proper explanation of that from God's word which you say does not actually mean what it says. You and yours though, will not even do this. You just say it doesn't mean what it apparently says, and then leave it all wide open to speculation with nothing but the broad application of millions of years in place of rapid creation in days, and a complete denial of all things related to a global flood.

What you choose to believe demands that there is no standard of truth. Unless you yourself are that standard which all must submit to. Which is nothing less than to make yourself God. Which is exactly what all sin is. The desire to exalt one's self above God. God says one thing, the sinner says and does another. So how about it 4WD, are you God? Is the bible true and or the word of God? If yes, will you please explain to us what the bible's account of creation really means as you understand it, rather than just say it doesn't mean what it simply says?

Why should we and everyone else believe that when the bible says the world was created is six days, it doesn't really mean that? If it is all symbolic of something else, please explain the symbols. Can you do this, or do you just demand that it doesn't mean what it simply says? Do you believe Moses and the others who wrote it were inspired or not? If so, then what exactly was the divine message their inspiration was to impart? If not what they simply said, then what? What are some of the deceptions the bible refers to, that all should beware of? If the spirit of God is truly leading you, surely you can answer some of these important questions for us. Will you?

What parts of the bible actually mean what they simply say, and which parts do not?

[th1b.taylor]

You think young earth creationism is a basic tenant of the faith?  That is really, really sad.  And that from one in constant conversation with God; all that much more so.

Hmm.  That is not what I said but you're talking as if you and... wait for it... just a little more... The Barbarian went to the same college because he also lacks in Reading Comprehension and tells people what he thinks they said as you just did.  That is both rude and dumb. And Jesus us that except we become (believe) as a small child.  The scriptures are very clear, so clear that Primaries have no problem, what-so-ever, understanding the Gospel, the Epistles or the Old Testament a.k.a. the Bible Jesus and the Disciples taught from.

Now, you drew me off course, so, the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, is essential to the Bible because all the rest of the Bible is built it for a foundation and if it is a lie, then the whole book falls.  However the Bible stands and it protected by the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God of the Creation. In Duet 4:2 and at the end of Rev 22 we are warned of adding or subtracting from the Bible and truly I would be careful with the Word of God!

[Amo]

I loved this from the BioLogos site;

"I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science. Mary Schweitzer happens to be a devout evangelical Christian, who finds that her view of the Creator has been enriched, not diminished, as she learns more about the complexities of the natural world."

Yes, we can welcome them. Especially when their findings lean heavily toward a young earth over an old earth, even though some will not allow for such.

[Alan]

Not at all true for the less than 2% of the Church Membership that actually believe the basic tenants of the Christian Faith but there is no way to convince you or anyone else because it is exactly that, Faith!  Those of us that been indwelt with the Holy Spirit are in constant communication with God and though you think uss mad or stupid, it does not matter, in the least.  We have God with us and if I live, I profit from my service to Him that created us and if you go so far as to slay one of us, even better because out spirit ascends to be with the Father until the Rapture on the Earth and then we receive our glorified Bodies.

You have chosen the easy path and those of us that are like me have left that path and have chosen the narrow and more difficult path because the end of it is the Glory of God and you have chosen to remain on the easy to follow crooked path that leads to the Lake of Fire and eternal death and suffering.

Because we are led to live the life of the Christ we, just, want you to go with us.

Ah yes, the HS, when you run out of facts to run your narrative you can always apply the HS as if you're much more anointed than others here. 

[Alan]

Yes, we can welcome them. Especially when their findings lean heavily toward a young earth over an old earth, even though some will not allow for such.

In this case, her findings are not a young earth but that isn't why I loved the message, I loved it because it embraces the discoveries that science unfolds in the world around us, rather than claim that what we are observing, testing, and proving are lies, trickery, and confusion.

[4WD]

What good would the word of God be 4WD, if anyone and everyone is able and allowed to make it say whatever they wish?

Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

Rev_20:2  And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

So Amo, is Satan really a serpent like it says there, a reptile such as a snake, a lizard, or maybe an alligator or a crocodile?  What do you think?  Is the reference to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be taken literal or symbolic?  How about in Revelation 20?  Same serpent?   Literal or symbolic?

[The Barbarian]

My statement about the banana was a tongue-in-cheek comment,

There are actually creationists who think it's an issue.

 

You say that watermelons and clouds share a common treat,

Trait?   No, having water is not a trait.   

Can you claim that since watermelons and clouds have a common ancestor, water,

They don't have a common ancestor.   I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking all things are traits.

In my book your statement would be a statement against evolution, humans and apes share a common treat...

It's the homologies and genetic relationship that matter.    And we know that they indicate common descent, since we can check that with organisms of known descent.

but that does not make them the same thing, or even related.

Genetic information does indeed indicate relationships.   Would you like to learn how we know?

Besides that, the fact that life forms share DNA and are therefore related, has already been debunked scientifically.

Someone's misled you about that.   The degree of genetic identity has been demonstated to show relatedness.

Have a look at this famous DNA of yours, the claim that since humans and chimps share 98.5% of it...they must have a common ancestor.

It's far more than mere genetic similarity.   That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more.    Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes.    It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together.    And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.



That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.

1. Some time after DNA was discovered back in the 1950's, science found that of all that DNA we have only 2% was actual functional DNA.

By the time I was an undergraduate, in the 1960s, there were already articles showing that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") had other functions than protein synthesis.   

And all the evolutionists jumped up and claimed: See all that useless DNA, these are leftovers from evolution and it is undeniable proof that evolution is true. They called it "junk DNA".

There is a lot of non-coding DNA that seems to have no function.    The GULO gene in humans, for example, is the remains of a gene that makes vitamin C in other organisms.   But since primates were fruit-eating, they got plenty of vitamin C from their diet, and there was no need for it.   So a random mutation inactivated it early in primate evolution.   

One researcher showed that huge amounts of non-coding DNA could be removed from a genome with no noticeable change in an organism:

Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.

More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. And yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html

These mice lost about 3% of their genome, with no effects.    So yeah, a lot of it is junk.   But a lot of it also has been adapted to other purposes.

2. Science discovered that the second strand of DNA was doing absolutely nothing. Again proof of evolution

I think you got that one garbled.   It there were not two strands, replication would be impossible.   It has to be that way.

5. Today it has been found that there most likely is no "junk DNA" at all.

GULO gene in primates.   Does nothing whatever.   Random removal of 3% of the non-coding DNA of mice had no discernable effect on them.   So your assumption is wrong.

You have in fact no proof that there is such a thing as genes that have no function

See above.  You've been misled on that.

What has been discovered is also that the amount of DNA one shares, bears no relevance to what is actually produces or does!

For example, the timing of gene expression.   Humans mature much more slowly than other apes, and never fully mature compared to them.   We look like immature apes.  But the growth of our skulls continue longer, and the size our our teeth and jaws is relatively smaller.   So a little difference can mean a lot.   

And then a whole lot of DNA is used for communication purpose.

All coding DNA is like that.  That's what "coding" means.

The claim that humans and chimps are related because they share common DNA is completely debunked by science.

See above.   You've been misled.   I've spent a lifetime learning about biology, and you really don't understand what this is about.

DNA cannot rewrite itself.

Happens all the time.   You have dozens of changes in your genes that were not present in either parent.

The genetic code cannot produce a new code that produces another species.

Speciation is an observed fact.   Even creationist organizations admit that it is.

DNA must have originated from intelligence

The universe originated from intelligence.   However living things came about from that initial creation, as God tells us.

The chance that the different segments of the DNA strands came together by natural processes is abysmally small

God said it did.   You should believe Him.

[Sonofason]

Hmm.  That is not what I said but you're talking as if you and... wait for it... just a little more... The Barbarian went to the same college because he also lacks in Reading Comprehension and tells people what he thinks they said as you just did.  That is both rude and dumb. And Jesus us that except we become (believe) as a small child.  The scriptures are very clear, so clear that Primaries have no problem, what-so-ever, understanding the Gospel, the Epistles or the Old Testament a.k.a. the Bible Jesus and the Disciples taught from.

Now, you drew me off course, so, the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, is essential to the Bible because all the rest of the Bible is built it for a foundation and if it is a lie, then the whole book falls.  However the Bible stands and it protected by the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God of the Creation. In Duet 4:2 and at the end of Rev 22 we are warned of adding or subtracting from the Bible and truly I would be careful with the Word of God!

I agree with you that it would be wrong to add to or to subtract from the inspired words of God that God inspired men have written down that have since been collected and put into one book known as the Bible.  Actually, it would be wrong to add or subtract to any entities words without their explicit consent.  I assume that we both believe that every word of this Bible, as they were originally written down were truly inspired by God.  Indeed, in 2 Timothy 3:16, in the original Greek, we find the word "θεόπνευστος".

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ" (Timothy 3:16)
A direct translation reads:
"Every scripture [is] God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, [and] for training, (τὴν) in righteousness..."

Interestingly, the King James translates this word that should mean "God-breathed" as "inspired.  Well, I do love the KJV version of the Bible, but I must keep in mind that it is only a version and it is not the original words of God.  It has been manipulated by men.  And so we must therefore put forth our best diligence in order to understand as best we can the true message that God intended to convey to those men when He inspired them to write what they wrote.  You see, we have already added to and subtracted from the Bible.  And now we must do our best to try to restore it. 

My point here is that we must distinguish the intent of God, not the intent of God according to the perceptions of men.  And that my friend is not so easy.  Indeed understanding God's intent requires God's intervention.  Indeed, it is true what Paul wrote to Timothy,

"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear".

God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth..."
(Genesis 1:11)

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind"
(Genesis 1:12)

Did God leave something out?  Do we know the full capabilities of the earth?  I don't recall God telling us very much about how the earth brought forth life. 

God tells that the earth brought forth every kind of plant.  Indeed, every tree, and every plant and every animal has come from the earth.  It seems to me that the earth, because it is God's creation is capable of doing whatever it is that God wants it to do.  If God desires that the earth do something, God is fully capable of enabling the earth to do it. 

What is it that the earth can do then?  Well, if we want to know what the earth is capable of, it's a good idea to discover and learn what the earth has been doing.  It makes proteins.  It makes enzymes, it makes RNA, it makes DNA, and apparently as God has ordered it, the earth also brings forth life.  And every single living being is the progeny of other living beings of the same kind. 

God never tells us that all of the decedents of one kind of creature will remain the same kind of creature throughout all eternity.  No, God tells us that the earth somehow brought forth grass and trees and every every other living organism, and that each organism that comes forth comes forth after its kind. 

That in no way discredits evolution.

That being said, I've never seen evidence of evolution, although I hear there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea.  But on what grounds would you deny the possibility that evolution is true, and on what grounds do you find evolution to be a contradiction to what God has told us.

[Amo]

In this case, her findings are not a young earth but that isn't why I loved the message, I loved it because it embraces the discoveries that science unfolds in the world around us, rather than claim that what we are observing, testing, and proving are lies, trickery, and confusion.

Right back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed. You choose to believe instead that these soft tissues can and have lasted millions of years, though observable science highly suggests otherwise. My faith in God's word meaning what it simply says about creation will not allow me to indulge in such speculation against tremendous odds, while I maintain the belief that unless otherwise indicated, God's word means just what it says. This is all really about faith, not science. Is our faith in the word of God, or the word of fallen humanity.

Of course, you may not even believe in fallen humanity, do you? If we evolved, how and when did we fall. Another aspect of scripture your faith requires doesn't not simply mean what it says. would you be kind enough to answer this question for me please. How and when did humanity fall according to your theory of evolution? Thank you.