Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why are we sinful from conception? Whose life was past to us so that this is true? Answer: Adam.

---

Because the genes that our parents give us have flaws, the world that we live in is fully of biological organisms that damage us, and we are born into a sinful society.

None of these things require Adam.

---

Sorry, but "flaws in our genes" are irrelevant to the problem of sin.

Although sin has degraded us physically, that's a result, not a cause. The Bible makes it clear that our problem isn't that we're broken mechanisms that need repair, although it's true, but the main problem is that we're beings in rebellion.

Quote:

---

I want proof!

---

Ok. But before I answer, you need to tell me exactly how you will decide whether my answer is a proof.

/Bevin

You did not answer the question.

If I use the bible, how are you going to decide my answer is valid?

If I use science, same question...

You said you want proof. I need you to tell me what would constitute a proof for you.

/Bevin

Quote:

---

If I use the bible, how are you going to decide my answer is valid?

---

Try using it and we will find out....

As to science, well, it's always changing....

You want proof, and you can't even say what a proof is.

You are simply looking for an answer that is emotionally satisfying to you.

When you really want proof, you will have tests that you apply that don't depend on your feelings, and you will be able to prove things are true that you don't like.

/Bevin

Let's try this again...

What is the reason behind the varied recurrence of a few basic designs? Examples, the paired bones of our lower leg, the tibia and fibul are represented by homologuous bones in other mammals and in reptiles. Why? Darwin supplied the answer: Common descent, as shaped by natureal selection, modifying the inherited basices for different circumstances.

Vestigial characteristics are still another form of morphological evidence, illuminating to contemplate because they show the the living world is full of small, tolerable imperfections. Why do maile mammals[including human males] have nipples? Why do some snakes[ notably boa constrictors] cary the rudiments of a pelvis and tiney legs buried inside thier sleek profiles? Why do certain species of flightless beetle have wings sealed beneath wing covers that never open? Darwin says "Vestigial structures stand as remnants of the evolutionary history of a lineage.

Ok, so...whatcha think? How does this conflict or rectify your understanding of Creation?

So I have my Bible and the Illustrated Bible of my childhood and the belief out of these sources. Of course I have some questions : It must have been quite cold the first and the second and the third day of Creation week, besides : Sundown without a sun ? - - - Maybe it is better to ask :What is the message ? - A Creator, Man his Masterpiece, handmade, Man falling - - -

Quite some important preassumptions of Evolution are simply wrong : So the dogma that phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, known as the Biogenetic Basic Principleof German physician Ernst Haeckel. - Of course there are the pharyngeal grooves outside and the pharyngeal pouches inside the neck in the place ot the gill split
of gill breathers also in the embryonal development of higher lung - breathers - but never all at the same time. The pharyngeal arches -supposed to be analogies to the gills - bear arch bow arteries, main arterial trunks and n o t capillary networks like the vessels in the gills and also never all at the same time.

Life - as we see it in microbiology - is a process constantly maintaining and to a certain degree reconstructing an order - i.e. of molecules giving the cell membranes - by the use of a constant flow of energy provided by ADP - ATP - metabolism, an order that has the tendency to fall apart, into entropy, into death.

The virus is an "obligatory cell parasite" , only carrying its genetic "program", the genoma, and having a "capsid", a capsule giving it the possibility to get attached to some living cells it then uses for metabolism and reproduction - what could viruses do as long as there are no (complete) cells available ? - That is supopsode to be a preliminary stage of life ?

It is a pity that predominantly the geological sciences are on the rostrum; SDA are not mining copper or engage in oil prospecting, but operate some 160 hospitals that meet WHO standars - and
Medicine is since 1850 - along with Darwin and Haeckel - a science of Positivistic preassumptions of Virchow, Rokitanksy, Hemlholtz, Du Bois - Raymond, Charcot - - Every (SDA) physician has to use this science as a "tool", less he would get in a very poor situation when malpractice and compensation are at stake..
It is a pity that Rodriguez in "Adventist Review" can begin a statement on suicide with " Frirst, psychology and psychiatry have revealed - - biochemical imbalances" or Vandemann - Jeffery, also in the "Review" can settle the matter with "Schizoiphrenia - - but the disease is a chemical imbalanvce in the brain" - - - and nobody cries out and at least asks about the mystery of iniquity, of Sin and Fall and all of us here on this very earth being submitted to Evil.

You are invited to look by Google for "Entropy" : Ther is a fire burning, the fuel reserves going down - nobody can give a scientific proof who lit the fire and when it will expire - only all living goes that way.


One very important word I have learned in Grammar school : Sokrates stated : "I know that I know nothing"; Platon in the Parable of the Cave sees Mankind condemned never to get a look on the real reality; Paul developes this idea in I Cor 13 : Now, like an enigma in a dark place, but then - - -.

II believe in the "then" of Paul.

Cheers, blessings

The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.

Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.

The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?

In short, the theory of evolution states that lower life evolved over eons into higher life forms. Many lower life forms (generally single cells or plants) are asexual, which is what one would expect if the theory of evolution had any validity. If the evolutionary process was to continue however, we would expect the continuation of asexual characteristics or possibly hermaphroditic characteristics (i.e. having both sets of sexual reproductive organs). Moreover, an evolving hermaphroditic creature should be able to self-fertilize itself. Without asexual characteristics or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic characteristics, how possibly could a mutant entity reproduce? The chance of such a mutant finding an exact complementary mate within its lifespan would be extremely remote given the infrequency of mutations, and especially fertile mutations.

Yet scientific observation reveals that of all the hermaphroditic creatures, only the flatworm is self-fertilizing. Moreover, there are no (or a statistically insignificant number of) creatures that we might suppose or rationalize as evolving. Given the eons of time for evolution to take place,we should expect to see many creatures at all stages of the evolutionary process. But we don't see any missing links to speak of, or creatures in transition. (Once in a while some "scientist" will speculate and publish some "finding" which is generally discarded later)

When we find a mutant in the higher level creatures, it is nearly always sterile. Furthermore, the offspring of cross specie types are always sterile (such as the mule, an offspring of a horse and donkey or the offspring of one type of dolphin mating with another type of dolphin.).

Again, how can possibly sterile creatures reproduce and continue the evolutionary process? They can't!!!

The answer to the male-female problem is pretty obvious. Genesis 5:2 states: "He (God) created them male and female and blessed them."

I found this and wondered if there were some thing wrong in the logic for creationism. Bravus...Wanna have a go at this, or is this a real problem for evolutionists? Or are Creationists making up a problem that just isn't there?