Thank you for responding so kindly as always, But I fail to see how genesis 1:1-25 has anything to do with how I live my daily life, day to day,and if I fail to see how it affects my daily life how am i supposed to regard those verses? Should it be to simply say God made the world somehow but i am not sure how, so I will just accept evolution as true for the heck of it? that is the mind set i would be forced to take.How would you take the verses?
1 Like
Donât accept evolution âfor the heck of it,â but because piles and piles of evidence point to its having happened and there is no good theological reason to deny it. 
1 Like
Donât ask the question of how God created â instead, focus on why. Re-read the first three chapters of Genesis, forgetting everything that youâve read on AIG or creation.com, and instead ask yourself the following questions:
- Why did God make mankind? Why did God make you? How far do you see mankind today â i.e. yourself â doing what God made you for?
- What did God intend for mankind, and how did mankind lose it? How do we still lose Godâs best for us today?
When you can show me Ameba to man evolution in real time or explain it to me to where it makes sense and not just âartwork in a museumâ that a man has put together and claimed it so, I promise you that I will become that fastest evolutionist you can find anywhere! You have my word on it. But âfancy art workâ is what they use to fool you with. If you search the Lucy skeleton you will see the reality that there is NOT enough evidence to claim for certain she is human or ape. partial boneâs are not enough. and being that Nebraska man and Pilt down man were lies all the way. {Wikipedia for info} I do not think Lucy has much to stand on! Not the bones at least.Now that âfancy art workâ they put out that fools people yes they are real LOL NOT!!! Evolution is more âfancy art workâ they intentionally make to fool the public than truth of any kind! âIf they can make you see it they can make you believe itâ. art work magic is all it is!
Regarding how Genesis tells us how to live, itâs seems that a big part of the message being given is in relationships, and our place in the universe . Some questions you might try to answer from the text:
What is my relation ship with God?
What is my relationship with my fellow man how does that affect my behavior?
What is the relationship between God and nature? (Relevant to ancients who made gods of nature, but also today where some see deity in nature)
What is the relationship between man and nature and how does it affect my behavior?
1 Like
I do not see how evolutionist can âholler from the hillsâ they trust and love science when it is my view if they had the guts to look at what Stephen C. Meyer really says about DNA{that Darwin never Knew about} and and what DNA says about evolution .it may just change their mind. i think evolutionist do not want that change and are afraid of it.so the bias in the âpro evolution scienceâ will not allow it to be considered as science at all.That way they think they can keep a lid on the DNA information that is in the cell and must change to be able to allow evolution be able to happen at all.i have looked at Stephen C Meyer debates on you tube and i do see that he has a very valid point. it makes the evolutionist angry and they deny that what he says is true but I have looked at all the evidence the evolutionist will not talk about and found it to be more probable than not! The Darwinâs âtree of lifeâ{the idea that all things are related}" is very questionable indeed.
Maybe, maybe not. But donât assume that people here think the way they do because they are just unaware of the other perspectives that are out there. Darryl Falk reviewed Signature in the Cell for BioLogos here.
1 Like
Hi Martin,
Iâve carefully read most of what Stephen Meyer has written about evolution, information, and so on.
His arguments are unconvincing. In many cases, he does not even understand what he is writing about. A simple Google search of âStephen Meyer Dennis Venemaâ will bring up several things for you to read.
I have heard him debate and he does indeed know what he is talking about. information in the DNA. evolutionist hate it but it is true! you should listen to is debates on you tube and look at his web site. evolutionist would love more than anything to shut him up so that they can continue the shape shifting idea of evolution. Mr Behe says the same as well. evolutionist do not have the only corner in science they wished thy did but they do not. they at the Dover trial attempted to say Mr Behe in his testimony said astrology was science now at this time, However later I heard from Mr Behe himself on you tube what he actually said and it was this;MANY YEARS AGO people could have used astrology and believed it to be science. They tried to make Mr Behe out to be a silly fool, but once you hear what was actually said you see how evil and wicked and false and bias the news media really are.That is why I do not give the Dover trial much of a grain of salt. if it was really that bias against intelligent design and it seems to be. and I am sure that was ONLY one example of many!
Christy Thank you very much for putting that on it was an interesting read. however why is it when an evolutionist talks about DNA it is automatically science but when Stephen C Meyer talks about DNA it is no longer science but then{ in the article} becomes philosophy? i do know that he is a philosopher of science but do you not think that he would understand what science was after all that college he took and that he may very well know what DNA does and may well know that there is a bias by evolutionist against the truth about what DNA does and is coming out. because if the truth gets out then evolution by natural processes would collapse evolution?I do think so very much.
If you read some other of the information you gave me you will find that Stephen C Meyer did answer a lot of his questions and objections on other web sites.Stephen C Meyer has never recanted one thing he has said and neither has Mr BeHeâŚin his book {Darwinâs black box.}they have tried to say the mouse trap in his book{ Darwinâs black Box} was a incorrect but in order to prove it they must change the mouse trap some way.or nail it to the floor and that is the same just changing one base for another base Behe said.
Well, that is not how I look at it and not what any intelligent person is doing. But, when someone with a PhD in the history and philosophy of science writes a book about cell biology and genetics and someone with PhD in Biology, whose research area happens to be cell biology and genetics, and that person says the historian/philosopher didnât have his biology facts straight, Iâm going to give more weight to the actual expert in the area in question. But maybe thatâs just me.
1 Like
Martin, letâs be real. Neither you or I could listen to someone talk about the intricacies of cellular function and DNA and make a valid judgment about who knows what they are talking about and who doesnât. That is ridiculous. It all comes down to picking who you trust.
Hi Martin,
If you look through what Iâve written here on BioLogos, youâll see Iâve also dealt with Behe in depth as well. Behe is a biochemist - and a good one at that, as far as I can see, when he sticks to mainstream biochemistry - but his arguments for irreducible complexity and the âlimitsâ of what evolution can accomplish depend on arguments from population genetics. Here, he is simply wrong - and his arguments fail to convince experts as a result. They do, however, remain popular among those who are not able to see his errors.
However Mr Meyer may have consulted an expert as well for the information he has on the DNA. I am sure he would not have pulled it out of the air.i see intelligent design in the womanâs body able to have a baby and a man not able to because he does not have the parts. That is pretty much intelligent design to me.Why would a woman have a womb and breast and a man not have a womb if it did NOT matter who had the womb? Iâm still happy.
Hi Martin,
Meyerâs books have errors in them - serious errors that undermine his argument, not just trivial errors that are tangental to his claims. The fact that those errors are there indicate that (a) Meyer is out of his depth on cell biology and genetics, and that (b) he has not consulted those who are not out of their depth.
1 Like
@DennisVenema, thank you so much for taking the time to join us here. As you know, weâre having a shortage of people who can actually speak from hands-on experience on the topics of biology and genetics. Expertise is very welcome!
Otherwise itâll just be us non-biologists rambling on endlessly.
2 Likes
However on his website Meyer does have videos of what he said and does claim is in the cell, and if what he says is true, then intelligent design is true as well. the replication of the cell and the way DNA divides and puts DNA back together and then has a correcting process in it. their is something that he put on his site about a walking part of DNA and when I looked on Wikipedia it said the same thing exactly same thing and it was not written by the same person.{any one to do with Meyer}âŚ
If you attempted to discredit the pro evolutionist side as hard as you attempt to discredit the ID creation side, you would be putting your knowledge to much better use.
The errors of evolution are much more visible than the errors of creation. being that no man monkey or monkey man has ever been found except in the natural history Museum where the people who put the information"evolution art work" out for all to see are very âpro evolution biasâ and they would not accept creation as true by a God had happened if God himself came down and told them he did it and he told them man had not changed a bit since the first day that man was created. The Bible is very true when it says man loves darkness rather than light. see John 3:19