God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Would you like me to show you?

I keep hoping someone will respond with a "yes" one of these times when you ask this question. However, it seems far too many are interested in unthinkingly defending their beliefs, rather than actually considering contrary evidence.

Yes, I agree, it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation. When presented with facts and evidence contrary to evidence in these debates, the evolutionists continually make the claim that it is settled science and all science points to evolution therefore it must be true, this is known as the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum and populum. Here is a summary of this fallacy for you.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."  

I Have been through these debates many times here with evolutionary "Believers" which is what they are, yet they do not want the facts, their only argument is to point to the fact that a majority of scientists believe evolution. All that is showing is the scope and success of the indoctrinization of the schools and universities is having on the minds of the young. Evolution is a dead and dying theory, even among the scientific community, and though this is still a minority opinion still, the tide is quickly turning.

It is just like the deafening silence on my post on climate change in the controversial issues section here that lays out concrete scientific evidence that shows the fallacy of man made global climate change.... Just because the majority agrees does not mean it is true. That simply put is bad science and a logical fallacy.  

[Justin Adams]

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This argument is irrelevant.

Our presemt creation is a closed system. Just watch and see. It was not ever meant to go on forever. God plays the long game.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Our presemt creation is a closed system.

Yes, the universe is a closed system. Individual organisms, and populations of organisms, are not. So the second law of thermodynamics (entropy is always increasing) is not evidence against evolution.

7 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

God plays the long game.

Absolutely true.

 

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

yet they do not want the facts, their only argument is to point to the fact that a majority of scientists believe evolution

I would love to look at the evidence you have that the earth was created roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

12 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution is a dead and dying theory, even among the scientific community, and though this is still a minority opinion still, the tide is quickly turning.

I am skeptical that you have evidence to support this assertion.

[enoob57]

52 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

There is considerable fossil and genetic evidence that life forms change, and quite considerably, over time. There is no Biblical evidence that claims that "kinds" cannot change over time. Just as there is no Biblical evidence that death never occurred before the Fall. You appeal to the Bible for both of these ideas, but neither are supported by Scripture. When pressed for supporting scriptures, you tend to stop commenting. Why is that?

Because when the truth is given and then rejected there is no further reason to continue... it all awaits the judgement of God...

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

Because when the truth is given and then rejected there is no further reason to continue... it all awaits the judgement of God...

So you either cannot or will not support your position from the Bible. You will simply continue to assert that you are correct without any Scriptural support. Got it...

[The Barbarian]

42 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Yes, I agree, it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

Since they are both the same thing, that would make sense from a religious point of view.   On the other hand, since evolution and even speciation is directly observed to happen, anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can confirm it for himself.

45 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

When presented with facts and evidence contrary to evidence in these debates, the evolutionists continually make the claim that it is settled science and all science points to evolution therefore it must be true, this is known as the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum and populum. Here is a summary of this fallacy for you.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."  

You've confused evidence with opinion.   Here's an honest creationist's take on it:

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. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

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

And this YE creationist actually knows the science involved.

48 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Have been through these debates many times here with evolutionary "Believers" which is what they are, yet they do not want the facts, their only argument is to point to the fact that a majority of scientists believe evolution.

In this post, for example, I've merely noted the evidence clearly shows evolution being observed.  Perhaps, like many creationists, you are unaware of what the word means in biology.   Creationists often make up their own definitions.  Usually, the confuse evolution (a change in allele frequency in a population over time) with agencies of evolution, (such as natural selection), or consequences of evolution (such as common descent.)

51 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution is a dead and dying theory, even among the scientific community, and though this is still a minority opinion still, the tide is quickly turning.

And of course, we get the usual creationist fallacy of argumentum ad numerum and populum.  However, even that is a loser, as more and more people accept the fact of evolution.   Would you like me to show you how your fallacious argument is also factually wrong?

53 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

It is just like the deafening silence on my post on climate change in the controversial issues section here that lays out concrete scientific evidence that shows the fallacy of man made global climate change.... Just because the majority agrees does not mean it is true. That simply put is bad science and a logical fallacy.  

I'll go take a look.  If you're as confused about that, as you are about this, I may have a lot of cleaning up to do.

 

[The Barbarian]

38 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Because when the truth is given and then rejected there is no further reason to continue... it all awaits the judgement of God...

Actually, God isn't going to send creationists to hell for denying the way He created things.  He doesn't care about that.  He makes it very clear what you must do to be saved, and having the right opinion on evolution is not one of those things.   If you want, at Judgement, to be among the sheep, instead of the goats, read about it here:

Matthew 25:31-46

 

 

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution is a dead and dying theory, even among the scientific community, and though this is still a minority opinion still, the tide is quickly turning.

I am skeptical that you have evidence to support this assertion.

Here you Go... When I posted this another thread here I got crickets in response...

I Found this response at Quora very interesting as well...

All of the great Biologists of our time reject Darwin's theory, including Nobel Prize winners such as Barbara McClintock and Luc Montagnier. The discoverer of archaea, Carl Woese also rejected Darwinism, as does the famous Lynn Margulis who researched endosymbiosis. John Cairnes was among the first to demonstrate scientifically that Darwinian evolution is false and his studies were replicated and endorsed by Pat Foster of the NIH and many other trail blazers, such as Barry Hall.
 
The most outspoken anti-Darwinians of the 21st century are probably Dennis Noble and James Shapiro, the latter authoring a book called "Evolution; a View from the 21st Century", which tears down Darwinism and replaces it with Natural Genetic Engineering.
 
There are also those who advocate "Intelligent Design", such as the group called the Discovery Institute, but this organization has ties to Creationist agendas and has no more foundation as serious scientists than atheist apologists such as Dawkins, Moran or Coyne. The names I gave you are religiously neutral accomplished scientists, not atheism or bible advocates.
 
The National Academy of Sciences has formally agreed that Neo-Darwinism is wrong in claiming that mutations are random and the word "random" has been removed from the NGSS section on mutations.
 
The scientific method has pretty much killed Darwin.
 
A better question would be to ask if anybody of importance who is not an atheism advocate still endorses Darwin's outdated theory.

EDIT 9–17–18: Due to a recent uptick in interest in this answer, I think it best to add to the fast-growing list of important world-renowned Biologists who reject Neo-Darwinism and/or advocate the acceptance of alternatives. Apparently the word is getting out of the paradigm shift in which the major players in Biology have turned toward more Neo-Lamarckian evolution and away from the random mutation / selection concept of evolution.

I must say that when I wrote this response three plus years ago, I found it odd that all of the Biologists that were quite famous for their accomplishments seemed to be the most strongly against Darwinistic ideas, yet Neo-Darwinism still seemed to be the dominant paradigm overall. I no longer believe that Neo-Darwinism holds a consensus agreement within the scientific community.

In 2016, after I wrote this response, the Royal Society held a high-profile convention pertaining to the “New Trends” in Evolution. The leader of the convention, Denis Noble, whom I have already referenced, and who invented the pacemaker saving millions of lives, has this to say about Neo-Darwinism:

".... all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis..."

Also at that convention, Sonia Sultan presented powerful evidence supporting Neo-Lamarckian evolution, and the gathering was overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that it was well beyond time to shift the powerfully entrenched paradigm of Neo-Darwinism to something far more intentional. To me, that meeting represented a changing of the guard in evolutionary biology. The new consensus is NOT Neo-Darwinism, although there is still some discussion over whether these “new trends” should replace or “extend” Darwinian ideas.

There are plenty of heroes in the battle against stagnant orthodoxy, so I would like to give them their due. Suzan Mazur, a journalist who writes about scientific topics, wrote a book called “The Paradigm Shifters” and included among names I already mentioned illuminaries such as Eugene Koonin, Stuart Newman, Mae-Won Ho, Raju Pookottil and Nigel Goldenfeld. Mazur wrote a book about the aforementioned Royal Society meeting as well as a 2008 meeting in Altenberg, Austria where 16 scientists convened to discuss serious problems with the entrenched Darwinian hegemony, a group she dubbed the “Altenberg 16”. She also interviewed Niles Eldridge, who, along with Steven J Gould, published a groundbreaking paper denouncing the gradualism version of Darwinian evolution, in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

Others that deserve credit for turning the world of evolution upside down are Susan Rosenberg for her work on directed mutations, Bonnie Bassler for her entertaining TED talks regarding the intelligence and communication skills of microbial organisms as well as earlier work by Henri Bergsen. I have to give props to Stu Kauffman, who stated simply that “Agency is real.” It was DM Prescott in 2000 who revealed that a protozoan broke its DNA into 100,000 pieces and put it back together again functionally without a template.

The most recent assembly that has joined forces to combat the now refuted Darwinian culture is a group of esteemed scientists calling themselves the “Third Way of Evolution”, with the third way being NOT Creationism and NOT Neo-Darwinism, but evolution via intelligent cells’ intentional response to needs. Included in this group are:

James Shapiro, Denis Noble, Raju Pookottil, Eva Jablanka, Evelyn Fox Keller, Gerd Muller, Guenther Witzany, Eugene Koonin, John Torday, Robert Austin and many more are aligned in this group against Neo-Darwinism.

The Third Way of Evolution

The following link is an article written as the headliner for an issue of the respected literature Journal of Physiology, whose editor devoted an entire issue to the Third Way of Evolution, called Natural Genetic Engineering. Anyone who still thinks Neo-Darwinism is the accepted consensus among biologists should read this article fully. There are several names listed on there that I should have included in this response anyway.

Evolution evolves: physiology returns to centre stage

You specified scientists, but since Neo-Darwinism holds at its core the insane idea that random chaos explains constant upgrades in genetic data (rather than destruction), so the mathematicians have a LOT to say about that. Four hundred of the world’s premier mathematicians gathered at a college called Wistar for a series of conventions to discuss whether or not Neo-Darwinian Luck Theory was even possible. Their unanimous conclusion, as described in Paul Moorehead’s book “The Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” was that Neo-Darwinism was “untenable”. Prominent mathematicians present were Murray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger. as well as the meeting chairperson, Peter Medawar.

Fred Hoyle, the mathematician/scientist who coined the term “Big Bang” but refused to accept its existence based on his atheism, wrote two books explaining in detail why Neo-Darwinism was mathematically impossible (“The Mathematics of Evolution” and “Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work”).

Paging back to the beginnings of evolutionary science, the Father of Evolution himself would need to be Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, who proposed the idea of the inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, a theory that is bearing fruit in modern day evolutionary experiments. While he pre-dated Darwin, his theory was so popular that most scientists rejected Darwin even in his own day.

Based on direct repeatable experimental evidence, the scientific consensus in the year 2018 is that evolution as we know it is a cell’s predictable and intelligent response to a changed environmental need, not random mutations nor selection nor gradualism, as per Darwin.

 

https://www.quora.com/Who-are-biologists-who-deny-Darwins-theory-of-evolution

 

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

Read my comment above to One opinion, And you need to come up with a better response than you did the last time I posted this and you ignored it.