Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[vlad]

16 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

of what?

 

Please be more specific.

I have taken this definition from a dictionary (sense 2) and specifically it means any gradual changes e.g. in any species under the influence of for instance 1) ecological surroundings 2)mutation ... and so on. And all such development is predetermined by God just as anything else. Is my explanation plausible?

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, vlad said:

I have taken this definition from a dictionary (sense 2) and specifically it means any gradual changes e.g. in any species under the influence of for instance 1) ecological surroundings 2)mutation ... and so on. And all such development is predetermined by God just as anything else. Is my explanation plausible?

That is not evolution.  We all know that species adapt to changing environments over time.

That is the problem with Evolutionists.   They try to prove that lizards evolved into birds, by using things by using adaptation within a given species.    Just because strains of bacteria adapt to antibacterial substances, and just because animals adapt in size or color to a changing environment, it doesn't prove  macro evolution where one species evolves into an entirely different species. 

[Bonky]

There are numerous problems with the opening post but the one that strikes me the most is that even if evolution were false it doesn't mean theism is true.  This is key because this is posted under a "Defense of the Gospel" subforum and the post references the Bible. 

[one.opinion]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Just because strains of bacteria adapt to antibacterial substances, and just because animals adapt in size or color to a changing environment, it doesn't prove  macro evolution where one species evolves into an entirely different species. 

This depends a bit on what you mean by "entirely different species". There are examples of speciation that have been observed. Additionally, an interpretation of Noah's flood as being world-wide also requires that speciation can take place -- one species giving rise to a new species.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This depends a bit on what you mean by "entirely different species".

Depends on what I mean?   I gave an example of exactly what I mean.  

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Depends on what I mean?   I gave an example of exactly what I mean.

Well, there are examples of "completely different species" that have been observed. Mice that were brought accidentally by naval excursions to the Faroe islands and the Island of Madeira have undergone speciation in the last several hundred years. Hawthorn flies and Apple Maggot flies have speciated within the last 200 years. A wild strain of fireweed underwent speciation when it doubled its chromosome number and became reproductively incompatible.

If by "completely different species", you mean a lizard converting directly to a bird in a single generation, that's isn't how evolution hypothetically works. If you are going to argue against it, you should at least know what you are arguing against.

[one.opinion]

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

Creation and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are a great number of followers of Christ that affirm both, like Dr. Francis Collins, head of the United States National Institutes of Health.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

1. God said "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. So GOD CREATED MAN in his own image..." Genesis 1:27.

God as Creator, and specifically creating humanity in His own image is not disputed by EC (evolutionary creationism).

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

2. JESUS said that God created man: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6.

This is also not disputed.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

3. SUDDEN APPEARANCE of complex life in early Cambrian fossil layers.

The Cambrian explosion describes the tremendous variety of body types observed in fossils that are dated over a period of about 70-80 millions years. That time frame can only be called "sudden" in comparison to the vast time periods hypothesized by scientists.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

4. MAN'S RECORDED HISTORY only goes back to about 3,000 BC, the first dynasty of Egypt and China, agreeing with the Bible's flood date of 2418 BC.

Reliable dating of human-made artifacts goes back that far, but dating of other human activities goes back much further. For example, the famous cave paintings in Lascaux, France, are estimated to be 20,000 years old.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

5. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS says that systems go from order to disorder, yet evolution contradicts this by claiming systems go from "disorder to order".

Evolution without God's direction certainly seems improbable, but with God, all things are possible. Additionally, it is worth remembering that our planet is constantly receiving energy input from the Sun, so the thermodynamic argument isn't scientifically sound.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

6. DATING METHODS are greatly in error, giving an apparent age greater than the true age. This is due to unproven assumptions in the dating methods.

We've talked a bit about this before. Do you have evidence that dating methods are greatly in error?

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

7. 220 EVIDENCES for a young earth of about 6,000 years old.

I don't want all 220, how about a "top ten" of what you find most convincing?

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

8. ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL fossil forms between species as predicted by evolution.

On the contrary, there is an abundance of transitional fossil forms. For example, there is an entire series of transitional fossils from land-dwelling mammal ancestors to whales. (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03)

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

9. Misplaced fossils. For example:

i) Human shoe print on trilobite fossil.

ii) Cave painting of brontosaurus in Zimbabwe.

iii) Polystrate tree trunks over many strata layers.

iv) Human and Dinosaur footprints in Turkmenia.

These have all been explained. I'll be happy to explain further, if necessary.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

10. No beneficial mutations have given a new species.

There is no way to change the number of chromosomes in all the cells of an organism to change it to another species. For example, man has 46 chromosomes in every cell.

These are multiple points here, so I'll look at them a bit at a time. First, there are beneficial mutations. Lactase persistence in humans is one example. There is a mutant version of an apolipoprotein, apolipoprotein AI - Milano, that improves the removal of cholesterol from the cardiovascular system.

Second, even though speciation typically requires long time frames, some speciation events have actually been observed. For example, the Apple Maggot fly speciated from the Hawthorn fly as certain members of the Hawthorn fly population decided apple trees were a more preferred environment and the two groups underwent sympatric speciation.

It isn't common, but chromosome numbers do indeed change. This happens much more frequently in plants, but it can also occur in animals by various mechanisms. Robertsonian translocation has led to speciation of mouse populations on the Island of Madeira.

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

11. Complexity of sexual reproduction and eyes, can’t be explained by evolution’s random processes.

Development of sexual reproduction is a bit more of a mystery, but the eye is a poor example to use against the process of evolution. There are tremendously different varieties of eye throughout the animal kingdom, ranging from light-sensitive spots of planaria, to the physiological marvels in birds of prey. God's handiwork is truly amazing!

On 12/24/2017 at 3:26 AM, KiwiChristian said:

12. Bad social effects of evolution

Evolution is an attempted explanation for observation of the natural world. Evolution-ism is when people have erroneously attempted to apply evolution to the human condition. This is not a failure of evolution any more than the Spanish Inquisition is a failure of Christianity.

I believe in God as omnipotent Creator and Sustainer of the universe, including the living organisms all around us. I just happen to believe that God used evolution as a tool to make the amazing world of living things.

[101G]

On 1/3/2018 at 7:10 AM, vlad said:

2. JESUS said that God created man: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6.

GINOLJC, to all. I would like to address this point you made. "From the beginning of creation", not at creation. so the words of the Lord Jesus is correct. man the creature was created male and female on day 6, but man, the creature, the first one, was formed on day three in the beginning. 

PCY

[101G]

On 1/3/2018 at 7:10 AM, vlad said:

In my opinion there is creation and there is development (evolution). There is not much contradiction between these two if you recognize that God is God of both creation and evolution.

this I agree with you on. we understand creation by God, but God also said, let the EARTH bring forth. Genesis 1:11 "And 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: and it was so". Genesis 1:20 &21 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good".  Genesis 1:24 & 25 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  "his kind" and "their kind". this tells me of variety of species. and this variety over time have produce all we see today. cross pollination of plants have produce what we have today. so the EARTH brought forth but by the guiding hand of God. supportive scripture, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". so if anything evolves, or cross breeds, or any adaptation, it's because of God hands.

 

PCJ 

[vlad]

On 1/4/2018 at 5:31 PM, shiloh357 said:

That is not evolution.  We all know that species adapt to changing environments over time.

That is the problem with Evolutionists.   They try to prove that lizards evolved into birds, by using things by using adaptation within a given species.    Just because strains of bacteria adapt to antibacterial substances, and just because animals adapt in size or color to a changing environment, it doesn't prove  macro evolution where one species evolves into an entirely different species. 

What about dogs from wolves?