God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

34 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

And the Jewish people are older than either the Sumerians and the Samaritans.  

Um, Abraham, from whom the Jewish nation is descended, was born in a city founded by Sumerians.   C'mon.  

 

35 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Wheat was  in the Garden  of Eden making it much older than the Neolithic period.

(Barbarian checks)  Nope.  No mention of wheat in the garden of Eden.   This is starting to look like making it up as one goes.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

This is starting to look like making it up as one goes.

There is a surprisingly high number of arguments from YECs that they believe are based on the Bible, yet... aren't.

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Believe me, I understand this. I have many students that can supply definitions without understanding. But I find that if they can't even supply a definition in their own words, they likely don't understand a concept. I suspect this observation applies very well in this scenario, as well.

This is just plain wrong. Genesis shows this. Ur was a Sumerian city. Abram was a resident of Sumeria in his early life, who went on to become Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. Thus, the Jewish people are not older than the Sumerians.

You are right about Ur being a Sumerian city, but there were thousands of people on the earth before Abraham.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Um, Abraham, from whom the Jewish nation is descended, was born in a city founded by Sumerians.   C'mon.  

 

(Barbarian checks)  Nope.  No mention of wheat in the garden of Eden.   This is starting to look like making it up as one goes.

Gen 1:29 - I have given you EVERY plant yielding see that  in on the surface of all the earth...  This starting to look like you don't know the Bible very well

Peace and joy

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Um, Abraham, from whom the Jewish nation is descended, was born in a city founded by Sumerians.   C'mon.  

 

(Barbarian checks)  Nope.  No mention of wheat in the garden of Eden.   This is starting to look like making it up as one goes.

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Gen 1:29 - I have given you EVERY plant yielding see that  in on the surface of all the earth... 

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth,

But no wheat?   No tangerines, either.   Those were both produced by men, long after Genesis.    As you learned, wheat is a modern species, unknown in the Neolothic.

The Bible isn't a Ouija board for people to make up whatever they want to.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

There is a surprisingly high number of arguments from YECs that they believe are based on the Bible, yet... aren't.

Yep.

[omega2xx]

14 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

Um, Abraham, from whom the Jewish nation is descended, was born in a city founded by Sumerians.   C'mon.  

 

(Barbarian checks)  Nope.  No mention of wheat in the garden of Eden.   This is starting to look like making it up as one goes.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth,

But no wheat? 

DUUH.  Do you really not know what "every" means?  Does wheat bear seed? 

 No tangerines, either.   Those were both produced by men, long after Genesis. 

Irrelevant.  Man through real science has learned to breed plant that make hybrids.  Do you really expect the Bible to list every plant and animal? If it did we would need a wheel borrow to carry it around.

 

 As you learned, wheat is a modern species, unknown in the Neolothic.

No I didn't.  As usual you say_____but NEVER  support what you say with evidence, because you don't have any and accept what you say by faith alone.

 

 

Quote

The Bible isn't a Ouija board for people to make up whatever they want to.

It is evolution that gets it's "science" from a ouija board.  That is one reason it is never right.

Peace and joy

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is a surprisingly high number of arguments from YECs that they believe are based on the Bible, yet... aren't.

Why don't you name some, 3 will do, so we can determine if you understand what was said?

I can easily name 3 things evolutionist believe but can't prove.

1,  The first life form wad a single celled life form.

2.  Natural selection.

3.  Land  life evolved from sea life. 

I will add one thing the Bible says that is proved thousands of times every day and can't be falsified---After their kind, which refutes evolution.

Peace and joy

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by omega2xx

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Why don't you name some, 3 will do, so we can determine if you understand what was said?

Interesting - I've asked you about 5 times to define a mutation in your own words and you've refused. Yet, you ask me to present support of a claim on demand. Since I would like to continue the conversation and perhaps open your eyes and ears to knowledge you have yet to consider, I will comply. I will, however, ask you again to provide a definition for a mutation in your own words.

Here is a list of a few arguments. You've inspired #6.

1. Death did not exist before the fall of Adam.

2. There were no other people on earth at the time of Adam and Eve.

3. The flood of Noah covered the entire planet.

4. The earth (and universe) is 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

5. Humans and dinosaurs existed on the planet at the same time.

6. Wheat was present in the Garden of Eden. Even if you argue for creation according to "kind", there is no way to state that wheat could not be part of "grass kind".

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I can easily name 3 things evolutionist believe but can't prove.

Science generally provides evidence, not proof. Can you prove you weren't created last Thursday with implanted memories that simply tell you falsely that you weren't born earlier? (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)

There is strong evidence for each of those three points, and point 2 is essentially a scientific fact that has been supported by numerous experiments. There is not a creation science organization on the planet that denies natural selection.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I can easily name 3 things evolutionist believe but can't prove.

1,  The first life form wad a single celled life form.

2.  Natural selection.

3.  Land  life evolved from sea life.

 

 

The oldest fossils on Earth are single cells.   So that's settled.

Natural selection is directly observed.  

Here's an interesting case...

Decades ago, some 4,000 elephants lived in Gorongosa, says Joyce Poole—an elephant behavior expert and National Geographic Explorer who studies the park’s pachyderms. But those numbers dwindled to triple digits following the civil war. New, as yet unpublished, research she’s compiled indicates that of the 200 known adult females, 51 percent of those that survived the war—animals 25 years or older—are tuskless. And 32 percent of the female elephants born since the war are tuskless.

A male elephant’s tusks are bigger and heavier than those of a female of the same age, says Poole, who serves as scientific director of a nonprofit called ElephantVoices. “But once there’s been heavy poaching pressure on a population, then the poachers start to focus on the older females as well,” she explains. “Over time, with the older age population, you start to get this really higher proportion of tuskless females.”

This tuskless trend isn’t limited to Mozambique, either. Other countries with a history of substantial ivory poaching also see similar shifts among female survivors and their daughters. In South Africa, the effect has been particularly extreme—fully 98 percent of the 174 females in Addo Elephant National Park were reportedly tuskless in the early 2000s.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/wildlife-watch-news-tuskless-elephants-behavior-change/

Sea fossils are much older than any land fossils.   And as your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows, there is an entire series of transitional forms between fish and land animals.

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Interesting - I've asked you about 5 times to define a mutation in your own words and you've refused.

I have tole you that defining a term is not the right question.  I can easily google a definition and give  it to you.  Would that make you happy.

Yet, you ask me to present support of a claim on demand.

Asking is not demanding.  If you make a statement expect you to present the evidence to support it or admit you can't.

Since I would like to continue the conversation and perhaps open your eyes and ears to knowledge you have yet to consider, I will comply. I will, however, ask you again to provide a definition for a mutation in your own words.

I will give you my definition if you will give me your definition of a gene.

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Here is a list of a few arguments. You've inspired #6.

1. Death did not exist before the fall of Adam.

The Bible says it did not.  Prove it did.

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

2. There were no other people on earth at the time of Adam and Eve.

The Bible says they  were the first 2.  Prove they were not.

3. The flood of Noah covered the entire planet.

The Bible IMPLIES  the flood was global, prove  it wasn't

4. The earth (and universe) is 6,000 - 10,000 years old.

The Bible does not give the age of the earth, so I have never given its age.  Can you prove it was billions  of years old?

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

5. Humans and dinosaurs existed on the planet at the same time.

Prove they didn't or admit you can't.

6. Wheat was present in the Garden of Eden. Even if you argue for creation according to "kind", there is no way to state that wheat could not be part of "grass kind".

All you need is some basic knowledge of genetics o know that grass and wheat are different species  which is easily proved with DNA.  Can you prove wheat evolved from a species of grass?  You can't even prove which one came first.

Science generally provides evidence, not proof. Can you prove you weren't created last Thursday with implanted memories that simply tell you falsely that you weren't born earlier? (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)

Wrong.  Science proves/disproves theories and I can give you hundreds of examples.  I only need one to PROVE you are wrong.  Real science has PROVED there is more than one blood type and it can PROVE  what type you have.  That is one  of the silliest statements one can make about science.  I b et you a dollar to a doughnut you know your type.  I will also bet  if you ever need a blood transfusion, and the come to type your blood, you will not say give me what id handy, you can't prove what I need.

There is strong evidence for each of those three points, and point 2 is essentially a scientific fact that has been supported by numerous experiments.

Talk is cheap.  Present the evidence and just one of the experiments

There is not a creation science organization on the planet that denies natural selection.

If you was willing to look at the other side of the coin, you would find there are at least 2:  Institute for Creation Research(ICR) run by PHD's  in some field of science and Back to Genesis.

I will add there is not an evolution organization on the planet that can prove natural selection.

One final comment.  All of your comments about death, the flood, etc, I can't prove what I believe, I accept them  by faith alone. At the same time, whatever you believe about them you also can't prove.  You accept them by faith alone.  The only difference is I admit I can't , you will not.

Peace and joy