God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Hi, one.opinion, Did you read this??

I did, yes. Do you think scientists now know more about evolution than Darwin did? Even 150 year old Darwin quotes do not supersede  actual scientific inquiry and observation.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Would you like to know how he knew?

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

In the end, Charles Darwin doubted his own THEORY.

Nope.  That one made it into  Answers in Genesis's   "Arguments we think creationists should not use."

Here's the quote in context:

This quote comes from a letter from Darwin to his mentor, the geologist Charles Lyell, from 23 November 1859, whilst On the Origin of Species was being published. Darwin expressed how much it means to him that he has Lyell’s support, and here is the quote in context: “I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting doctrine of modification in your new Edition. Nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely:—to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for think-ing of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.” Here we have another instance of a very telling sentence being omitted from a quote, Darwin stating that he did not feel that he had been devoting himself to a phantasy.

https://thedispersalofdarwin.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/three-darwin-quote-mines-corrected/

 

Now, I'm pretty sure you never actually read that letter, and just copied the quote from some dishonest person who correctly assumed you wouldn't know the context. But this should be your warning that merely copying quote-mined snips of text is a dangerous practice; someone else is likely to know the context.   Learn from it.

But the point is that you 're just wrong about evolution being random.  As Darwin pointed out, natural selection is anything but random.

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Is Evolution quite possibly the Biggest lie ever told?

Since it's directly observed almost every day, not much chance of that.   I'm guessing you've confused evolution (which is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time" or as Darwin said, "descent with modification") with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

4 hours ago, HAZARD said:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" — Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.

Again, the context:

"It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."

Darwin was right, BTW; your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, lists a very large number of series of transitional forms that he admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

I can show you the rest of those doctored "quotes" in context, if you like.   Will it be necessary, or have you realized that you were lied to?

 

 

[dad2]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The possible metaphor in my mind is the “surgery” part, not the existence of Adam and Eve. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You are trying so hard to refute everything that you are not even attempting to understand anyone else’s viewpoint.

So I do know what people have posited that want to be called believers without believing the bible. In your case I still see no real clarity. I see you doubt the deep sleep in Genesis here. You doubt that God took a part of the man to create a woman as the bible says. So what 'Adam and Eve' you believe in I have no idea. Is it a couple that had animals ancestors? Is it a couple that lived in a time when mysterious other people populated the earth also? Is it a couple that took millions of years to evolve? Anyone can mouth the words Adam and Eve. In other words do you absolutely renounce the TOE or not?

Edited February 23, 2020 by dad2

[dad2]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Most rational people see the obvious evidence.

 

One minute you claim to believe in a real Adam and Eve and the next you are claiming evidence that man came from animals. Pick a side.

Quote

Multiple young earth creation scientists recognize that the evidence supports evolution

What is that supposed to mean? You think any YECs believe we share ancestors with flatworms? No. I accept the God given ability and trait of being able to adapt and evolve. That does not mean that man descended from animals. Nor does it mean that the nature we live in today with it's slow processes of evolving is what existed in the past. The word evolution alone is meaningless.

 

 Be honest.

 

[HAZARD]

Survival of the fittest? Can evolutionists tell me which chimpanzee died out and eventually became a man. There are chimpanzees in every zoo I have visited throughout my lifetime so I'm wondering hew they became gradually extinct and evolved into man?

[HAZARD]

Survival of the fittest? Can evolutionists tell me which chimpanzee died out and eventually became a man. There are chimpanzees in every zoo I have visited throughout my lifetime so I'm wondering hew they became gradually extinct and evolved into man?

[HAZARD]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I did, yes. Do you think scientists now know more about evolution than Darwin did? Even 150 year old Darwin quotes do not supersede  actual scientific inquiry and observation.

When did chimps evolve and gradually die out as they became man. I still see chimps as they were from the beginning. They don't look anything like this?

 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

its really not about insisting others believe what i do.  its more about adding to scripture, which is what your position suggests.

Your additions to scripture are the issue.  

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

and as far as the lynx, nope.  its not a link. 

As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, it's a transitional form.   One of many, many that Wise admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure.

YE creationist Todd Wood

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

even more sad is your method of trying to discredit me by attack my intellect and saying that i am wrong. 

It's not debatable.   As you have learned we observe evolution constantly, and there is much evidence for macroevolutionary theory.   Even informed creationists admit it.

9 hours ago, Cletus said:

you have believed a lie and are beguiled. 

As you now realize, it's an observed phenomenon.   And even your fellow YE creastionists admit there is a lot of evidence for it.   Find a way to accommodate the reality.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

The lie of evolution is that is is supported by evidence. Only modern evolving is supported by evidence.

Your fellow YE creationists say you're wrong.    And they actually know about the subject.

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Your fellow YE creationists say you're wrong.    And they actually know about the subject.

 

No. They do not have a clue if they suggest that man evolved from common ancestors with flatworms. I kid you not. But since evos like to try to cause division and misrepresent what people say, I would take your claim with a grain of salt. I have said there was lots of evolution that went on before the flood and after in the former nature. I also pointed out it was hyper fast compared to the slow evolving of today. None of this means man evolved from animals, or that all and any evolving did not start with the created creature kinds some 6000 actual years ago.

 

 Science time is a joke because they suppose that 4500 years ago or so was about 65 or 70 million years ago. By the time they get near -real time- 6000 years ago they are deep into imaginary billions of years! Such is the dangers of basing time claims on beliefs alone. But since the underlying spirit of TOE is to cause doubt in creation and Genesis, that really is the goal and name of the game for them.

So the question arises in bible believers minds, when they see someone fanatically defend and promote TOE while butchering and disbelieving the bible in the process..what spirit are they coming from?

Edited February 23, 2020 by dad2