It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by slank
Very interesting newly identified genetic mechanism of bacteria transfers gene 'cassettes' both intra species and inter species.
This sounds a bit like object oriented programming with computers.
It is the technique of modularization.
As I read it cassettes of DNA [a gene?] can be traded between individuals within a species and across species. Many can be stored and if positioned in an activation point will be expressed.
This indicates that nature already has been discovered doing some of its own gene splicing, even between species.
The discovery was made on work with all of the antibiotic resitant strains of bacteria now appearing.
Where I first noticed this was the current story on 'superbugs' being found commonly in turkey.
While my previous post doesn't demonstrate a whole new gene being created, it does demonstrate that a gene that appears even a single time may be able to be installed across multiple species.
I am not an expert, but guessing in many cases a new functional gene may be created from duplicate copies of a current working gene. From the small bit of reading i have done duplicate copies of genes in DNA don't appear to be at all uncommon.
That might imply that certain kinds of genes would tend to be mutated into similar kinds of genes. ie. carbohydrate structure genes might mutate into a gene that creates a slightly different carbohydrate structure. A protien enzyme gene might mutate into a gene that produces a slightly different type of protein enzyme.
Another impression from reading is that DNA is conservative. So when a new mutated form of a gene appears, as long as it is not fatal and expressed it tends to be retained even though it has no current function.
With the 'cassette' type gene function it sounds like it might allow for a kind of randomized trial and error use of a selection of genes to express.
The basic building blocks of genetics are bits and pieces. I think of tiny cogs, wheels, spokes, etc. By putting them together in ever greater numbers and complexities is what has the potential for creating large elaborate systems.
It is speculated that many biological systems work as fractals. That is, a thing is created that creates a[two,three] thing(s), that creates a[two,three] thing(s) . . . These can create quite beautiful and elaborate structures. In computer science graphics they are used to form leaves, trees and many natural looking creations.
I wonder if DNA is ever reverse engineered from a protien or organic molecule?
Instead of the DNA blindly creating a protein enzyme, I wonder if it could be wrapped/constructed around the enzyme in a way to save the information on how the protein was [or could be] structured? Then the DNA could be run in reverse repeatedly to create that protein over and over again.
Originally posted by slank
The mutation of a duplicate copy of a gene, means that it is an alteration of something that worked.
In learning computer programming the easiest way to start is to take working source code and play with it to produce new/varied results.
Because in both cases the source is not 'from the ground up scratch' it is much more probable that the end results will produce working results. [It doesn't of course mean they will necessarily be useful results]
In terms of 'reader' DNA/RNA, it means that if a cell finds itself functioning well by accident of containing a particular protein enzyme, it doesn't have to figure out anything about that enzyme, all it would have to do is blindly 'read' it and incorporate that code with it's own original code. Certainly this would be a much easier, more probable possibility of creating a working code to produce that useful enzyme then just randomly attaching A,G,T/U & Cs.
Sort of like cutting and pasting source code that one doesn't comprehend or even read, but does the task that is needed in one's program. [Software piracy comes to mind. or idiot programmer]
I apologize, profusely, for the long time it took to type this out. Its inexcusable, I had planned on beign very thorough, but there really is too much here to address in single posts.
My understanding is that you basically feel that macroevolution is seperate from microevolution and i suppose speciation and that, while there is evidence to support it, that evidence isn't iron clad and that it can't be said to be a 'fact'
One is not observing the fact of macroevolution when one looks at archaeopteryx. One hypothesises that archaeopteryx has the intermediate features that it does because of macroevolution.
Now, this does not mean that we are wasting our time when talking about transitionals, because one cannot observe the paleontological scale changes of 'macroevolution', rather one can only have evidence that is consistent with its occurance. -So-, transitionals are evidence of macroevolution having occured, and they tell us what its done and can do, and are relevant to the discussion.
Most importantly, no transitionals, (in so far as we can identify them) then no operation of macroevolution in the past, and that in itself means that there would be major problems with the entire idea of evolution.
For example, chichilid fishes. Now, a fish is still a fish, as is famously said. However, speciation, as in the cesation of gene flow or even its ability to occur between two populations (even by third parties or something) can be said to have occured here. A single parent population has segregated into two distinct populations, and the result has been that they occupy two different 'environments' and have different morphologies between them.
Yes but, as you have stated, its a fact that populations change over time,
your concern is, is it a fact that they change drastically and into other 'kinds' of animals (again tho, I think that 'kinds', while intuitively understandable today, doesn't have real biological relevance)
None of what you've presented is from scientists who think that it doesn't occur, they don't argue that it occurs, they argue that the particular pathway given, rather than another evolutionary one, occured. Having said that, I do agree that it shows that one can't domatically assert 'birds evolved from dinosaurs, its a fact'. That, most certainly, is deep in the realm of 'hypotheses'.
Infact, its so new and there is enough dispute to keep it a 'hypothesis' for now (of course, thats semantics anyway, if a theory is said to be a hypothesis that has stood up to its tests and not been refuted or superseded by a better hypothesis, but whatever)
I hope that the above illustrates my stance on the subject. I wouldn't seperate evolution into micro/macro/paleoscale or any of that when I would say that 'Evolution is a fact'. I had actually considered this question for a while. After all, what the heck do I care if evolution is a fact or a 'extremely well supported theory' or even a 'moderately well supported theory, and one that hasn't been superseded by any bettter theories yet'? So when I look at it, I am comfortable with the change in allele freq.
This of course rams right up against the issue of what evidence for macroevolution should be, and what macroevolution itself is. Raup notes that transitions are rare, considering that gradualistic/anagenic evolution would mean that there should be a large number of intermediate forms. If macroevolution is taken to mean only these very large transitions, then yes, I agree, those very large transitions haven't been observed in nature; but, and this is important, its only not been observed if one is talking about transitions between different 'kinds' of animals. For example, experiments on selection and genetic manipulation in flies have resulted in viable populations of complete freaks, with different numbers of body segements and limbs comming out of their heads.
Nature, not recognizing the human distinction between 'kinds' of animals, isn't going to say 'well, this is so radically different that its not a fly and therefore I will prevent it from existing.' I mean, if flies can exist, and I agree that this is different because its something that happened experimentally in a lab, but if flies can exist in populations where the features are so radically different, is there any reason to think that, say, fish with bony limbs can't benefit and change under selective pressure to develop supporting limbs? So in this way, macroevolution is a fact.
Change in populations is observed, in the wild.
Speciation is observed, in the wild.
And, since the fruit fly and other laboratory experiments show that there is no limit to the 'plasticity',
why not state its a fact? But I wholeheartedly agree that its not a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs, or that tetrapods evolved from some particular group of pre-tetrapods, that is all theory.
At the end of the three days of presentations, [Alan] Charig [chief curator of fossil amphibians, reptiles, and birds at the British Museum—BH/BT] orchestrated a concerted effort to summarize the ideas for which consensus exists. The general credo runs as follows: Archaeopteryx was a bird that could fly, but it was not necessarily the direct ancestor of modern birds.... A communiqué expressing the unanimous belief of all participants in the evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx was adopted, in order to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists (1985, 5:179).
Personally, I find it interesting and somewhat disheatening that the scientists at the meeting felt constrained to adopt a unanimous resolution concerning the “evolutionary origin and significance of Archaeopteryx” solely to prevent creationists
I think that that is a good thing. Most creationists are anti-rational, anti-scientific, and anti-intellect. Oh, surely, several of them use scientific sounding analyses, and in particular the chemists in the ID movement are using techniques that are very scientific sounding, but ultimately their positions are entirely those of faith, and they are anti-scientific. I mean, if the conclusion that evolution is a fact is dogmatic, then what is it when one looks to the bible as absolute literal truth and tries to conform the evidence to it?
I will have to insist however that the transitionals are not promoted as observations of the fact of evolution,
However, it would be rather difficult to explain the fossil record if evolution doesn't occur, and in that way its supportive of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is said to be a fact because of the laboratory evidence.
Gravity is not a controversial theory, (notice I didn’t say fact). The reason is because the effects are consistently observed and measurable.
But gravity particles and gravity waves aren't observed.
Of course, even in the physical sciences, there are some suggestions and attemps at 'unifying' gravity along with other forces. And also the fact that gravity doesn't work at extremely small distances, and may even work differently at very large distances (but thats a more controversial issue) show that radical changes to the theorys of just what gravity is are possible and infact probable or even, completely necessary. And even just regular old gravity has changed, Newtonian gravity was superseded by Einsteinian gravity. If Gravity in that sense was a fact, then Einstein's advancement wouldn't have been possible, or at least it would be wrong. So the situation is analagous to evolution.
Such as what? And is it all of them? This aspect might demonstrate that particular homologies aren't homologous, but there are still homologies across the natural world. The hox genes for example, are the usual 'poster boy' of homology.
But it cannot then be stated that these organisms aren't related.
Hmmm… I don’t understand how we’ve gotten here again. I feel it necessary to again draw attention to this statement: “One is not observing the fact of macroevolution when one looks at archaeopteryx. One hypothesises that archaeopteryx has the intermediate features that it does because of macroevolution,” by you, contained in this thread. These statements stand in stark opposition to each other in one case it is evidence of macroevolution, in other it’s not. Please clarify.
The point isn't that the ape-man transition is a factual observation of macroevolution,
This isn’t true. Because ancient bones with very little to no flesh present, and usually not a complete skeleton appear to be transitional doesn’t make it so. It’s amazing Dawkins states that organisms appear to be designed but they can’t be, in this case fossils are claimed to appear intermediate so they must be.
The point is that these fossisl can't be said to not be intermediates, their features are intermediate between the 'types'.
They show that the 'type' doesn't actually exist, because they are inbetween it. Similarly archaeopteryx with its combinations of features, most broadly the hands, tail and head of a reptile with a hallux and feathers, show that, irregardless of what archaeopteryx is, that there isn't a 'bird type'. That all the features of birds are in other animals, espcially the prime features of feathers. The 'type', the kind, is an accident of the history of nature. If whatever the heck archaeopteryx and the other dinobirds and some dinosuars were still around, people probably wouldn't have any concept of a bird type, or at least it woudl be a very different concept, one that included ground running barely feathered no beaked sharp tooth long tailed screaming monsters that rip things apart with their hands.
quote: These would of course argue against the factual nature of evolution, and again point out the speculative, not factual nature of the theory.
I think that the rejection of any 'transition' in the fossil record can't refute evolution, no more than any transition can 'prove' the factual nature of evolution.
In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.
But this in itself is evolution. They are citing that evolution occured. I understand and agree that it shows that there is some controversy and disagreement on the specific patheways of evolution, but this only is an issue for the theory on the pathway.
To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years
! I'll have to check that one out, thats a very strange thing to get. 6,500 years ago was 4,500 BC, practically the historical era. I've read about there having been a populational 'bottleneck'
one that is proposed to account for the genuinely surprising closely relatedness of humans and the low variability. I've often heard that the whole modern human population is less variable, in terms of genetics even not just phenotype, than -populations- of chimps. Not all 'chimpkind' as a whole but just subpopulations of groups of chimps. No reference on that, its one of those 'factoids' that just sticks in yer head.
here is ASU's Institute of Human Origns take on it Did you insert this for a point of personal irony? Just Curious.
? No, i thought that it would make a good 'generalized' statement on it. Why? I think I am missing something.
Homology is very suggestive that evolution occurs, but it is theoretical. IOW evolution explains homology, homology doesn't explain evolution.
Based on observable evidence, such as the rate of natural, unrepaired mutation in an organisms DNA for example
And you are stating that its too slow to lead to a strengthening of the limbs over the general timespan involved? I mean, the move from a perch to a lizard is a big jump, but from a bony limbed shallow water fish to a more boney limbed terrestrial amphibian?
While your point about existing variation is taken, existing variation in genetic structures in unable to account for the appearance of new genetic information,
Perhaps this is the greatest stumbling block then. If the genetic evidence demonstrates that, despite appearances, evolution cannot occur, if it refutes the idea that evolution occurs, then that woudl be significant.
This is not the point. The point is that there is considerable dissention
There is considerable dissention on the transitions, but none of the authors cited argue that evolution doesn't occur. As far as any of them can tell, and say, it does occur. They simply argue that a different set of archosaurs evolved into birds, or that a particualar organism is more terrestrial than usually thought, but the factual occurance of evolution is not based on this weak, theoretical transitions. Indeed, you are quite right, there is dissention and lack of consensus on some of these aspects, but there is a consensus that evolution occurs.
If a fruit fly can have legs growing in place of antennae or have entire bod y segments lost, or duplicated, then surely these sorts of changes are possible.
Nygdan, I’m sorry but this absurd, and doesn’t take evolution as a whole into account. There absolutely are kind barriers.
Ah, this is a strong statement, and probably the one we should try to focus on.
The issue that I have with this is that, just what are these 'kind' barriers? For example, one could've said that feathers were a kind barrier, that they are something that had to have been formed ad hoc and at once. But they don't have to be. There are plausible antecedants to flight feathers in the fossil record. Given that, even tho we can't state as fact that "dino-fuzz" evolved into feathers, we can say that there isn't anything barring feathers from evolving. The 'kind barrier' of feathers doesn't exist, because feathers aren't limited to any kind of animal. .
It’s certainly different than the bacterial flagellum. Certainly genetic information must have been added to get from a anaerobic primordial cell to a complex organism with multiple organ systems and tissue types. I would describe that as a ‘kind’ barrier wouldn’t you?
And the tetrapod limb, similarly, there is nothing 'kind like' about it. Its just a limb with some bones. Its not far fetched to say that it could've come from more primitive antecedents
Its not insurmountable change, given that flys can have their entire body plan altered and survive.
I understand that it ends up meaning a lot of changing of the genome, but obviously the genome can withstand change. At least thats how I understand it to be.
Now, of course you are not a fan of the Talk Origins newsgroup's archive, but there is a page about this subject.
I note them because they do discuss the issue, and because they have the references relevant to the issue at hand. I, however, haven't been able to read those particualr references. The case made in them is that, infact, new structures can arise from old ones, and that 'arbitrary' gene sequences can result in functional ones.
I will reiterate the is no proposed reasonable mechanism to account for the formation of new genetic information.
I do not understand. Why are mutations an insufficient source of new variation/information? Mutations are known to occur, they alter the genome, why aren't they able to alter it in such a way that results in a slightly different phenotype? And why can't natural selection act on this to result in new structures?
Dawkins for a refutation of this concept.
Which of his books refutes this?
1. “new” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
If I understand this correctly you are saying its an issue because, say, in chichilids the new species isn't particularly different than the old right? Its just a different variation on the same type right?
2. “new” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
Indeed, human based selection is what inspired, some say, Darwin to come up with natural selection. The agent of selection isn't necesarily whats important here. Afterall, the humans didn't create ad hoc a new gene or set of genes and work out how it could be inserted into the organisms without disturbing their genome to the point of destruction. They selected for traits.
Nature, too, can Select for traits. But, this sort of thing is the theory of natural selection, not the fact of evolution.
The fact that the populations can be changed so radically is enough to show that evolution occurs.
Infact, aren't you arguing that it doesn't occur, not that it occurs at the direction of any intelligence, man or god?
5.9.1of this one of those pages one finds that multicellularity was observed to have occured in a unicellular organism Chlorella vulgaris, and in 5.9.1 Nakajima and Kurihara 1994 observed multicellurlarity in a bacterium, Shikano et al observed a morphological change of a size increase of 13 times the original size, from short rods to long filaments along with a size increase of 13 times.
If the problem is that a totally new structure hasn't been observed to have evolved in nature de novo, well, thats not exactly what is expected to be the fact of evolution. Bird wings, for example, needn't have evolved out of nothing and all at once. Its the 'progressive' change that is the key to it. The change in a population of finches to have beaks that are stronger and larger than before, and a shift in diet from small plants to large hard shelled nuts has to be evolution. The new variation did not exist before, its new variation and new information. Yes, finches had beaks to begin with, but they didn't have those kind of beaks.
not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Well, if its a question of massive change into entirely different sorts of organisms without any human selection, then I agree, this has not been observed. This does not mean macroevolution does not have a factual basis.
Hmmm… I know of theories that claim chromosomes are duplicated and freed up for selective pressure, but I don’t know of any observed examples of this. The instances of aneuploidy, at least in higher organisms, that I am aware of are overwhelmingly negative.
Entire chromosomes have been seen to have duplicated and freed up for all sorts of selective pressure.
And genes and even sets of chromosomes. And variation beyond the ancestral populations range has been observed to occur, this isn't 'hidden' genetic information,
Heck in one they only provided a maze with two alternate routes and rewards in them.
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify as microevolution, does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require just change, but progressive change,
On this I would have to disagree. Evolution is merely change, progressive or non-progressive. From the human viewpoint, and from a current temporal viewpoint, it certainly often looks like things have been progressive. But, for example, Eohippus wasn't under pressure to become the modern horse. It was under various pressures at variuos times and different populations of it evolved in all sorts of directions. Progression is not required. In particular it shouldn't have anythin to do with the appearance of a new trait.
In Dobzhansky’s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings. In the end the only thing produced was fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic
But he didn't directly and specifically alter it. He, in a sense, caused possibly hundreds of years of random, no directed mutations to occur over a few generations. And the result was entirely new body plans.
If mere mutations can produce that, then what is supposed to prevent them from causing anything else?
And these organisms needn't be more fit, becuase there was no selective pressure.
Think about it, without selective pressure, all those changes occured. What would happen if there was selection and time for it to act on the organism?
With over 4 billion years of time and a nearly infinite number of generations? Selective pressure in small 'microevolutionary' steps can produce practically any 'macroevolutionary' patter. Induce multicellularity, cause differentiation of cells, let entirely different organisms meld into the same one, throw in new genetic information with viruses, increase some of the different types of cells and decrease the others. All the changes involved, they are mind boggling in terms of 'raw' evolution, in terms of raw factual uncontroversial and seemingly powerless changes in a population. But with direction, with natural selection, they become workable. With speciation they become accelerated and with limits to plasticity they become 'progressive'.
I was sold on evolution until the subject of the primordial cell came up, then I started seriously researching it.
Well, at least if there is anyway to reject modern biology, that would be it. Its the great unknown in it all.
Gravity seems to hold up very well at all levels except the quantum level.
As before, which gravity? Newtons, einsteins? Tommrrows?
Okay, you can get speciation based on some definition of the word, but you do not get new biological structures, and this is truly where the meat of this discussion lies.
Similarly, you can mix two organic reagents together and get coherent repeatable results time after time.
And you can seperate populations and apply selection and get speciation.
However the result of evolution is merely inferred, and never observed (macro).
The only thing that is not observed are the paleontological scale changes, which are not the 'factual' observation of evolution.
one of the major one’s is drug development. I specifically did a major portion of my graduate work re: enzyme thermodynamics and transition state analogs.
Christ. And you still find time to read a forum about reptiloid illuminati pyramid builders from planet x eh?
Originally posted by Aeon10101110
He did put forward very curious attitudes, interestingly. For one, he maintained that his beliefs in the spiritual, quite fundamentally Xtian, were not religious in nature Now, I have encountered such statements many times and never was any proof or justification offered as to how that could possibly be true. But quite paradoxically, he was somehow convinced that evolution is a religion which is another common assertion made by fundies.
Originally posted by saint4God
Where would you like me to begin? I considered the possibility of addressing each point, thus doubling the length of your post from quoting you and responding in equal length.
Originally posted by saint4God
I do not know (from two posts prior) how this turned into yet another Bible bashing session when we're talking about Creation, something that only happened in the beginning of the first book of the Bible, but would recommend attending one of the many hundreds of other Bible-bashing threads located on ATS that already address the concerns that you have. If not, please give one concern at a time on a new thread and we can discuss. Perhaps starting a thread called: Bible Contractions. Oh wait, I think there's one already with that title. How about: Biblical Queries. Tie that into some kind of secrecy and world domination and it'll stay here on ATS.
Here is my question. Whenever someone says, "Evolution doesn't seem to fit", why is the response "you got a better theory?" or "oh, so I guess you're going to tell me 'God did it!'. From a scientific standpoint, can we not see how silly of a response that is? Just because we're lacking sound theory does not necessitate attacking a religious group. It shows the argument going from a logical discussion to an emotional one. Let's talk science and keep unemotional about it. I think you've brought some good things up. I'm very pleased that it caused a response from our friend mattison0922 who had answers and questions I could relate to.
Intelligent Design I think is most appropriate given the topic. Now, are we going to talk about the politics of it, what scientists think, or the validity of it being a science in and of itself?
[edit on 19-8-2005 by saint4God]
Originally posted by saint4God
Can we please get back on topic and stop blaming Christianity for the faults of science.
Originally posted by Aeon10101110
The biblical contradictions are well within context of each other. Please consider but a few of them:
Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)
Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)
Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)
Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)
Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)
Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.
Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)
Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)
Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)
Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)
Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)
Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)
Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.
Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)
How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)
Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)
When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"
Originally posted by saint4God
The issues you've brought up though were not the creation in Genesis. No, there is no confusion. The thing that's lacking is explanation on how. And God, being God, has a habit of being God, that is to say doing without having to explain Himself to us. Rather, He lets us use our brains to figure it out frequently.
[edit on 22-8-2005 by saint4God]