God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Second, WHY WOULD I POSSIBLY BOTHER RUNNING THROUGH MORE SCIENTIFIC DATA WHEN YOU WON'T HONESTLY DISCUSS THE FIRST?

Because there is a lot more to this than what has been discussed here. My Inability to explain is no excuse to ignore it.

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, dhchristian said:

Was that my comment or a quoted part of the article? If it was mine, that is not what I meant.

Go back and look at it - it was your comment. I've challenged you on this repeatedly, and you are just now saying "that is not what I meant"? Pardon me if I have a really rough time believing you...

6 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Your inability to see the contradiction in your thinking about another 30x.

You are welcome to demonstrate the contradiction in my thinking. You have asserted it many times, but have never backed it up.

Quote

Good science is done without an agenda, or when one is honest with their assumptions. 

Do you think the essay overfull with falsehoods is without agenda? Do you think the author was honest in their assumptions if they are using obvious falsehood in order to support their conjecture? Are you truly so blind the the agenda and assumptions made in that essay?

Quote

Evolutionists are Just like the Catholic church was when it burned people at the stake for disagreeing with them.

Now you are just being dramatic. "Evolutionists" never killed anyone that disagreed with them. That's a rather disturbing accusation.

Quote

I Know of many Christians who were genius level students who avoided the sciences because of this overbearing bias that is forced upon them.

I suspect exaggeration here, as well. There are MANY places these genius level students could have attended if they wished to study in a YEC environment.

Quote

Because there is a lot more to this than what has been discussed here. My Inability to explain is no excuse to ignore it.

I'm not expecting you to explain it, but I do expect you to be honest about it.

I love talking about biology, it is God's creation, and He has given me an aptitude for it. But I'm not moving forward to another essay until you are honest enough to admit that first essay was full of fabricated facts, was driven by an agenda, and was not intellectually honest - exactly what you consider evolution to be.

Your call, friend.

[The Barbarian]

43 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Mean that one has been brought up about what 30x by Barbarian,

The Adventist invention of YE creationism is well-documented.

Many Evangelicals in America believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.

...

White rejected what she thought were geologically motivated “compromises” as inconsistent with the plain account given in the Bible, though she read this in English without consideration of the context in which it was written. She insisted Noah’s flood was global and that it had produced all of the geological layers,a claim that even the most conservative Christian geologists had rejected as impossible, based on the evidence. The flood, argued White, reshaped the surface of the earth and the fossils testified to the cataclysmic nature of the flood, even though the fossils are stacked in such an orderly way that it is impossible to imagine how a chaotic flood could have deposited them like that.

https://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Edited January 2, 2020 by The Barbarian

[dhchristian]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The Adventist invention of YE creationism is well-documented.

Many Evangelicals in America believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution.

...

White rejected what she thought were geologically motivated “compromises” as inconsistent with the plain account given in the Bible, though she read this in English without consideration of the context in which it was written. She insisted Noah’s flood was global and that it had produced all of the geological layers,a claim that even the most conservative Christian geologists had rejected as impossible, based on the evidence. The flood, argued White, reshaped the surface of the earth and the fossils testified to the cataclysmic nature of the flood, even though the fossils are stacked in such an orderly way that it is impossible to imagine how a chaotic flood could have deposited them like that.

https://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Make that 31x.... If Moses believed in a 6 day creation....which he did, then YEC is not a "Modern invention"...

Here is an example from just a couple of centuries before Darwin.

Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God.

Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.³

Though he lived before Darwin, Newton was not unacquainted with the atheistic evolutionary theory on origins. He was convinced against it and wrote:

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.

The First Quote Sounds an awful lot like What My definition of Theism is.... That is Isaac Newton and not "fig" Newton that wrote that.

The Following is an article on exactly this topic of YEC and the early church.

Some theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists have used the beliefs of the Church Fathers to challenge modern young-earth creationism. In this paper I intend to examine the beliefs of the leading Church Fathers relating to the Genesis creation account in detail and highlight what they believed and why. From this study it is evident that there was in fact a strong link between acceptance of six-day creation and a 6,000-year millennial scheme in order to try and determine when Christ would return. Although there are some differences with modern creationism, a degree of harmony in approaches to biblical hermeneutics is evident. The Patristic use of the Septuagint, however, meant their timeframe was in error, but later acceptance of the Masoretic Text rekindled millennial thinking.

Looking at the beliefs of some of the Church Fathers in relation to creation, and also in relation to the millennium, what becomes apparent is that a belief in a young Earth was widely held in the early Church by the Church Fathers. This undermines claims that such belief is a recent phenomenon, or is not in tune with traditional Christian theology.

Read More At https://creation.com/creation-millennium-church-fathers 

The Following PDF Discusses the early church teachings on creation, such as Ireneus, and Theophilus, and Chrysostom on creation. It also contains a great explanation of the DEISM in modern Christian intellectual circles as opposed to in the past, before Darwin. I Would like to quote that here for both you and @one.opinion

In the study of theology, the fields of creation and eschatology (teachings about the end times, last phase of the world) are closely connected, because the doctrinal concepts involved affect one another. When continental German, French and Dutch universities embraced mythological interpretations of Holy Scripture in the 19th century, this came with a changed expectancy for the future. This is particularly evident in professor Scholten from Leiden University and his pupils.6 There was no longer any hope for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting in that sense. Everything was spiritualized and eternal life was eventually restricted to the human soul. Science had taught theology that miracles don’t happen and that dead bodies don’t come to life again, so the theories of the theologians changed accordingly. The personal God of Christianity was replaced with the abstract Force of Deism.7 In the 20th and 21st centuries, subsequent development saw many theologians, ministers and priests embrace naturalistic worldviews, giving up their belief in a personal God, and a conscious personal future after the death of the body.

Historical evangelicalism withstood this trend originally; preferring traditional views of creation and eschatology. Although in the United States more than 40% of the population has young creationist views on the origins of man,8 there is hardly any support for creationism among the evangelical academic leadership. Creationism is rarely taught in American colleges and seminaries.9 Best-selling evangelical authors such as N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath, and Tim Keller are all evolutionists. That, surprisingly, about half of the evangelical pastors still hold creationist views is due to outside factors, and despite their professors. In Europe the situation is worse, also among the general public. A recent survey published in National Geographic shows: “In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution. The proportion of Western European adults who believed the theory ‘absolutely false’ ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.”10 On the basis of the general situation in colleges and seminaries, and the almost complete lack of creationist 

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_1/j28_1_77-83.pdf

What this is showing is that YEC is alive despite the efforts of the intelligentsia to abolish it and the exclusion of it being taught in the temples of "higher learning". It is exactly as I have warned you all here, That what you believe is nothing but a form of Deism. 

[dhchristian]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Go back and look at it - it was your comment. I've challenged you on this repeatedly, and you are just now saying "that is not what I meant"? Pardon me if I have a really rough time believing you...

What page was it on? Give me a date and a time stamp, I am not going to back and reread 20 pages of comments. 

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I suspect exaggeration here, as well. There are MANY places these genius level students could have attended if they wished to study in a YEC environment.

Not if you are a Creationist. I Grew up in the Most liberal part of the country where Darwinism was pounded into the students forcibly in the Public schools, and Creation excluded forcibly from the discussion. That my friend, is known as indoctrinization and Mind control, not teaching. True teaching is the platform where all ideas are discussed freely and debated accordingly as opposed to being berated as "Juvenile" or worse. It is like the Justification used by the left today to "get in the face" of any one wearing a MAGA hat, same thing only intellectually speaking. That is what you are part of, and it is a cultural phenomenon which was preceded by in the schools. You Are probably ignorant of this because you caved to the pressure, as I was when I compromised, But I returned to the Truth of the Word of God.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm not expecting you to explain it, but I do expect you to be honest about it.

I love talking about biology, it is God's creation, and He has given me an aptitude for it. But I'm not moving forward to another essay until you are honest enough to admit that first essay was full of fabricated facts, was driven by an agenda, and was not intellectually honest - exactly what you consider evolution to be.

That is OK, because the evidence is mounting against you. 

[one.opinion]

22 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

What page was it on? Give me a date and a time stamp, I am not going to back and reread 20 pages of comments. 

Your first comment on page 99.

27 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm not expecting you to explain it, but I do expect you to be honest about it.

I love talking about biology, it is God's creation, and He has given me an aptitude for it. But I'm not moving forward to another essay until you are honest enough to admit that first essay was full of fabricated facts, was driven by an agenda, and was not intellectually honest - exactly what you consider evolution to be.

That is OK, because the evidence is mounting against you. 

Hahhahahhahahhaha ok... Are you ready to admit your first piece of "evidence" was full of fabricated facts, was driven by an agenda, and was not intellectually honest?

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Make that 31x.... If Moses believed in a 6 day creation....which he did, then YEC is not a "Modern invention"...

As you learned, Moses never said that the "yom" of Genesis were literal days.   Nor did anyone else in the Bible.   That is a modern invention, as you see above.  Even evangelicals, prior to the 20th century, were OE creationists:

 "But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. "

The great Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon, The Power of the Holy Ghost

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Though he lived before Darwin, Newton was not unacquainted with the atheistic evolutionary theory on origins. He was convinced against it and wrote:

That would be impossible for two reasons.    First evolutionary theory is not atheistic.  Darwin, for example, wrote:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Second, no one in Newton's day knew about evolution.

 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

What this is showing is that YEC is alive despite the efforts of the intelligentsia to abolish it and the exclusion of it being taught in the temples of "higher learning".

It's dying slowly, as more and more people become aware of the evidence, and because Christians are showing them that evolution is completely consistent with God's creation.    The reaction against this trend has produced the deistic concept of "intelligent design", which has increasingly seduced YE creationists to become deistic in their thinking, with out realizing that it espouses a blind metaphysical necessity to justify its assumptions.

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

 

 

[dhchristian]

On 12/23/2019 at 11:03 AM, dhchristian said:

Evolution states that Monkeys become man which is an impossibility genetically as only 2% of the genome of humans apes are the same, so evolutionary science calls the other 98% Junk DNA... Which is to say Evolution is nothing but Junk Science.

Whenever there is a debate about evolution, the Darwinians always make the claim that “99% of the genetic matter of apes and humans is identical.”

 

That sounds pretty convincing but they never tell you that they are only referring to just 2% of the DNA and their comparison does not include the “junk DNA” that makes up 98% of the human chromosomes. 

 

Darwinians have to exclude “junk DNA” from their DNA comparison because ape and human “junk DNA” are so different there isn't even a way to compare the two.

 

If you include all 100% of the DNA, and not just 2%, then ape and human DNA are so different that it is inconceivable for humans to have evolved from apes. 

 

For this reason, the Darwinians pulled a fast one and created the phony concept of “junk DNA.”  Darwinians labeled 98% of human DNA as “junk DNA” and claimed it was useless junk and should be ignored in any comparison of ape and human DNA.

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php

Bumping this for the sake of the Post.

I could have said it better, And I can see how you read it as me saying only 2% is similar. This is not what I meant and common sense would tell you that. What I attempted to say is the 98% is vastly different in comparison to the 2% That has been used by evolutionists as a comparison. My Attempt was to paraphrase the fourth paragraph on the pasted text from the Link. 

That is as close as you will get to an admission of error here. I Will not say the facts posted are in error as the second set of facts I posted seem to confirm a greater than a number significantly lower than the 96% @one.opinion has posted. If the Y Chromosome is any indication the difference is more like 50/50, which still refutes the probability of ape to human evolution. 

[one.opinion]

59 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I could have said it better, And I can see how you read it as me saying only 2% is similar. This is not what I meant and common sense would tell you that.

Then why not say that ~10 days ago when I first told you that the 2% similarity figure you used was absolutely wrong?

What do you have to say about the claim from the essay that atheistic scientists made up the term "junk DNA" because the non-coding DNA was supposedly so different between human and chimp genomes? Remember, the term was first published in 1972, and the first draft of the chimp genome was not published until 2005.

Can you see now how the essay was full of fabricated facts, was driven by an agenda, and was intellectually dishonest? This might be easier for you since you can judge the article, not what you have said yourself.

I'm not picking on this just to be a jerk, but because I want you to see that this type of behavior exists in young earth creationist circles. And you assumed it was true without checking because it was from "your side" of the discussion.

Edited January 3, 2020 by one.opinion

[dhchristian]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That would be impossible for two reasons.    First evolutionary theory is not atheistic.  Darwin, for example, wrote:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Second, no one in Newton's day knew about evolution.

Materialism and atheism have been around long before Darwin, traced back to Plato and even before Him. So Newton was well aware of the Mindset, and Even Paul the Apostle addresses these topics in His epistles (Romans 1, 1 Cor, 1-3 in particular) There has always been alternative creation myths From the Biblical account, whether of diverse religions and or Philosophies of "wise men".

 

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's dying slowly, as more and more people become aware of the evidence, and because Christians are showing them that evolution is completely consistent with God's creation.    The reaction against this trend has produced the deistic concept of "intelligent design", which has increasingly seduced YE creationists to become deistic in their thinking, with out realizing that it espouses a blind metaphysical necessity to justify its assumptions.

That is because of the lack of a revival in pretty much the past century. You see in a revival the Truth shines brightest, the Truth of the Word of God. You see, Because I have been where you are at, there is no way I am going back. Prophetically speaking we are currently living in the time of Darkness before the Dawn, the time of Famine of the Word of God, this conversation to me is proof of that. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus' Day, much of the church leadership is lost in the Idolatry of the carnal mind. Reason is there God, and the Voice of God is not being Heard anymore. the two extremes are the fundamentalists who have fallen into the Cult of textualism, and the Charismatics who have lost touch with Sound doctrine. The House is divided between these two doctrines of men, What is missing is Jesus, He has been locked outside of the church, much of the corporate church is denial that there is a Problem. This is the Laodicean church age in a nutshell, living in self deception and denial of their need, Just like You all are. Your faith is in science not in the Word of God, you think you are wise in your institutions of higher learning But you are "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked".

Spiritual nakedness is The absence of God confirmed Truth. A state contradiction such as Your theistic evolution is. A form of Doublethink. A waffling between to opinions and being blown about by any wind of doctrine.... That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4:14)

Until you begin to see this you are lost in your ways, like I once was, yes I was a Christian and going to church I could speak all the right doctrines and recite all the right verses But Jesus was not there. He was in my head, but not in my heart. He was Knocking and until I opened the door to Him, I would have continued in that state of waffling between the cunning craftiness of men. You see the mind of man is the adversary of God. No I do not deny Satan as a Spiritual being, and his influence on the World, But ultimately that Original sin was the Pride of Man as espoused in the Garden of Eden... To Be like God. That battle that is taking place is taking Place in your mind, and the Devil is having his way with you so long as your faith is misplaced in your carnal mind, and reasoning ability. The Word of God was just an instruction manual To be approached intellectually, God was Just a mental construct, just like he is to you. When You actually Open the door to Him Revival can begin. All of sudden the Word of God comes alive, God Becomes not just a mental concept but a person we have a relationship with, God With us (Emmanuel). It is then that the truth of God is revealed to you, and you begin to be clothed in that truth. For me to turn from this is to turn my back on God. Even with all the evidence against me I will believe Him and His Word. That is what a revival is all about, when Sinful men come into contact with a Holy, Holy, Holy God, we can only fall on our face and see how unworthy we are.

You see, that is thing with that letter to the Laodiceans, they are still a church, despite all their flaws, and God Gives them instruction on how to Overcome, But the problem is the denial and self deception is that there is no Problem. That we are good with God because our mind has deceived us. Self deception is the hardest lie to refute, because it is you lying to yourself and fellowshipping with those Who are also deceiving themselves. And this Problem begins at the very top with the leadership of the churches, where the majority now are fresh out of university and man taught as opposed to being elders and those taught by the Holy Ghost.

Here is where you are at, whether you agree or not, and your vain philosophies are the very root of your unbelief. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4:17-18)

I want you to think on those two Phrases Underlined in the passage above.