Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[vlad]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

 I don't know what language God used.  But the Bible records what God said and I believe the Bible and the Bible that God inspired says that God said that all of creation was very good.  And "tov-meod"  communicates what God said.   If you have a problem believing the Bible, then maybe you have a problem with believing God, too.

No, it is not about discussing things we don't understand; it is about something you refuse to accept.   I can

I can claim ultimate truth.  I have the ultimate truth in the Person of Jesus Christ and His written word.  I can put 100% of my faith and trust in it.  Apparently, you can't.  There is nothing secondary about my claim to ultimate truth.

 

All truth that God wants us to know has been revealed.  It is our duty to study and learn it.  And there is enough truth revealed in scripture to drive a stake through the heart of this silly myth called Evolution.

Yes, there and honest skeptics and Atheists like Dawkins know that to be true.  Christians are less honest than skeptics when it comes to Evolution.  Pretty bad when unbelievers can tell the truth and so-called "Christians"  are the ones who promote the lie.

There is nothing secondary about any logical constructions I am operating from.  

I can be sure of everything I am saying because of the light I get from Scripture on the matter of origins.  

You may not know.  Taht's your problem.  I am not going to join you in that realm of confusion.   I don't need to.  I have the inspire, inerrant and infallible word of God.  

Did you really write that: "Yes, there and honest skeptics and Atheists like Dawkins know that to be true.  Christians are less honest than skeptics when it comes to Evolution.  Pretty bad when unbelievers can tell the truth and so-called "Christians"  are the ones who promote the lie."?  

 I have decided to stop  debating here as I feel you are irritated to the degree of rejecting me as your brother.  Let us agree to differ. As a Christian I do not want to cause discord or cause irritation or anger. It began rather peacefully and I want to end up peacefully. God bless you. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by vlad

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

On 1/6/2018 at 2:16 PM, one.opinion said:

I've given 4 examples in this thread. Would you like me to list them again?

Sure, go for it.

1. Mice accidentally introduced to the Island of Madeira by Portuguese sailors have differentiated into different species within the last 500 years.

  http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Certain mouse populations underwent genomic changes (Robertsonian translocation) that altered the number of chromosomes in the different populations, rendering them reproductively incompatible.

2. Mice introduced to the Faroe islands also underwent phenotypic divergence and speciation.

https://www.setur.fo/uploads/tx_userpubrep/A_molecular_characterization_of_the_charismatic_Faroe_house_mouse.pdf

3. In the 1800s, Hawthorn flies in the United States underwent some interesting speciation. A subpopulation of the Hawthorn flies became more attracted to apple trees and diverged away from the main population. The new population diverged behaviorally from the original Hawthorn flies and became a new species by sympatric speciation.

http://news.ncbs.res.in/research/rise-apple-maggot-fly-–-how-altered-sense-smell-could-drive-formation-new-species

4. A population of fireweed underwent speciation when a small pocket became autotetroploid (four copies of each chromosome, instead of two). The tetraploid population was no longer reproductively incompatible, thus different species.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1514534?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Are these new species vastly different from the species they diverged from? Obviously not. However, they are indeed completely different species.

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Quote

Although I personally agree with you on this point, it is certainly debatable according to Scripture. First, from Exodus 32, after the golden calf, the King James version reads "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." In 1 Samuel 15, God was displeased with Saul and said "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night." Regarding the city of Nineveh, Jonah 3: 10 says "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." Personally, I think this is a misleading interpretation, but I can certainly understand why others would disagree with me.

It's called an anthropomorphism.  

I agree with you on this topic. However, it is obvious how an overly-literal interpretation of these scriptures can lead to what you and I would say is an incorrect reading.

[one.opinion]

52 minutes ago, vlad said:

Did you really write that: "Yes, there and honest skeptics and Atheists like Dawkins know that to be true.  Christians are less honest than skeptics when it comes to Evolution.  Pretty bad when unbelievers can tell the truth and so-called "Christians"  are the ones who promote the lie."?  

 I have decided to stop  debating here as I feel you are irritated to the degree of rejecting me as your brother.  Let us agree to differ. As a Christian I do not want to cause discord or cause irritation or anger. It began rather peacefully and I want to end up peacefully. God bless you. 

Thank you for your patience and wisdom in this reply and in this thread, Vlad. It might be a good idea for me to follow your example more closely.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, JohnD said:

And as far as macro-evolution goes... there is yet to be found one legitimate transitional form anywhere.

The fossil record has many examples of transitional forms, if this is what you are referring to.

[HAZARD]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record has many examples of transitional forms, if this is what you are referring to.

Evolution is Devolution in my opinion.

Look at the bones of an ostrich, the largest living bird in the world, and compare it to the bones of a bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in the world, and any sane intelligent person knows they did not evolve. They were created as they are by God.

 

The smallest bird is the bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae) of Cuba and the Isle of Youth. Males measure 57 mm (2.24 in) in total length, half of which is taken up by the bill and tail, and weigh 1.6 g (0.056 oz) Females are slightly larger.

This is believed to be the lowest weight limit for any warm blooded animal Look and compare the size of the eggs alone.

 

Then we have a common ostrich which can grow from 2.1 to 2.8 m, or 6ft 11 in. in height.

 

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Evolution is Devolution in my opinion.

Look at the bones of an ostrich, the largest living bird in the world, and compare it to the bones of a bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in the world, and any sane intelligent person knows they did not evolve. They were created as they are by God.

God's creation is amazing, I will never argue against that. However, I believe God used evolution of His creative purposes. How is the size of different birds evidence against the process of evolution? Scientists have observed size changes in guppies in Trinidad that were moved to a new territory away from predators. (http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane)

[HAZARD]

53 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

God's creation is amazing, I will never argue against that. However, I believe God used evolution of His creative purposes. How is the size of different birds evidence against the process of evolution? Scientists have observed size changes in guppies in Trinidad that were moved to a new territory away from predators. (http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/19-life-in-the-fast-lane)

I don't think that's evolution at all. Take away the predators and naturally the species left there will breed and grow to their full size when left alone.

Charles Darwin said this;

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day.

Nevertheless, Darwin confessed,

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day.

If they eye, ear, and heart were irreducibly complex, then no simpler versions than those in humans would exist. Of course, simpler versions of each of these do exist.

55 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Nevertheless, Darwin confessed,

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

To see the whole picture, it would be better to quote the whole passage, rather than an abbreviated version. Here is the quote with a bit more context, to tell readers what he really meant.

Quote

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

here is a real good probability killer.  an animal would have to mutate and breed to carry on its "evolved" gene.  but the offspring keeps being bred back to a non mutated gene pool.  sooner or later that gene will be bred out of the gene pool.

This is a misconception. Let's use the allele that causes sickle-cell anemia as an example. The mutation is clearly deleterious when an individual has two mutant alleles, but not even this negative mutation has been eliminated from the gene pool. Scientists have also discovered that the same mutation increases resistance to the organism that causes malaria. Genetic studies have shown that in tropical environments where malaria is prelavent, individuals with one normal and one sickle-cell allele actually have a greater life expectancy than individuals with two normal alleles (greater susceptibility to malaria) and individuals with two sickle-cell alleles. This example of a mutation with only a slight benefit hasn't been eliminated from the gene pool, why would mutations with greater benefits be different?

[JohnD]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record has many examples of transitional forms, if this is what you are referring to.

Not one legitimate macro-evolution transitional form.