God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Cletus said:

nope.

So you assert that a PhD scientist that is a young earth creationist is just plain wrong about the evidence for evolution. Do you have any qualifications or reasons why you think you know better?

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Cletus said:

you have put your trust in man.  you have be beguiled.

No, you are simply making an assertion with a very limited knowledge base. Young earth creationist scientists that study biology KNOW and ADMIT that there is evidence for evolution and that speciation does takes place. This is a plain fact that you are denying. Denial isn’t being faithful the Bible because the Bible never says that species cannot change - it is only a display of willful ignorance.

[The Barbarian]

The fact that humans evolved from other primates, like the fact that matter is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons is not adding to scripture, but they are true.  There are many things that are true that are not found in scripture.

Evolution is just an observed fact.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.    Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification."    We see that happening constantly.

And yes, humans a few hundred thousand years ago, were demonstrably different than modern humans.   Would you like me to show you some of that?

7 hours ago, Cletus said:

no need.  we wont be speaking past that comment until i see you clearly have repented. 

God is truth.   If you follow Him, the truth shouldn't scare you.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Cletus said:

one example of one thing changing to another?

Do you mean speciation? Yes, there are many examples. Would you like to see some?

8 hours ago, Cletus said:

Jer 13:23  Can the Ethiopian change his skin

No, one single Ethiopian cannot. But the human population sure did over time as it moved northward.

When you start start making assumptions that aren't in the Bible, guess what... you are relying on human interpretation ("the word of man") to do that.

There are exactly zero statements in the Bible that indicate that a "kind" cannot change over time.

Edited November 26, 2019 by one.opinion

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Evidence Against Evolution

Hello, @Jonathan BeWell, thanks for participating. There is really so much going on in this essay, that I cannot address it all at once. If you would like to have a reasonable discussion, how about picking single points at a time to discuss - your choice.

I will, however, address the portion of the essay addressing Theistic Evolution (or as Francis Collins prefers, Evolutionary Creation), since that is where I fit, more or less.

22 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

In the secular scientific community, however, support of theistic evolution is minimal. Because most scientists are atheistic, suggestions of God’s involvement in creation are usually dismissed. This dismissal is typically condescending and abrupt. Although denials of theistic evolution are less derogatory, the underlying message remains: science and God do not mix. This unfortunate attitude has stifled intelligent debate about the origins of life.

First, it may not be completely accurate to state that "most scientists are atheistic". In a Pew Research poll conducted in 2009, only 41% of scientists polled stated that they did not believe in God or a "higher power". Regardless, I am a PhD biologist and I have never encountered another scientist that treated me (at least outwardly) with any sort of derision. Several biologists have even expressed interest in collaborating.

On a separate note, though, I would have to agree with the sentiment that philosophical naturalism (the idea that the only true reality consists of things we can detect or measure) has indeed stifled debate about the origins of life. Research into potential mechanisms of life origins are important, even if they continue to conclude that science cannot explain it.

36 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Theistic evolutionists also believe that the creation account of Genesis is figurative -- not literal. However, the language of Genesis is time-specific, and the rest of the book is not characterized by metaphorical descriptions.

There is a LOT of variation amid TEs regarding how to interpret the creation account of Genesis 1-3. Many (myself included) accept a literal Adam and Eve that chose what was right in their own eyes, rather than following God's instructions. I would say that I do not accept that the Bible teaches a literal 144-hour creation period, and there is reason to believe that the language used is not clear-cut. Debate among theologians regarding the Genesis account absolutely pre-dated the theory of evolution. Additionally, even if the rest of the book is not characterized by metaphorical descriptions, the Genesis account does exhibit a high degree of symmetry suggesting the employment of literary device.

46 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Theistic evolution is actually a philosophy that dismisses biblical accounts in favor of scientific theories. It assumes that modern science must be correct and ought not be questioned. But are scientists infallible?

I think the initial criticism is unfair and off-base. I believe (in the tradition of Francis Bacon) in God's "two books" - the book of God's Word and the book of His works. Both must be true. Scientific evidence is under constant review, and should be heavily scrutinized. Scientists are certainly fallible, but guess what - theologians are, too!

49 minutes ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

They claimed that the sun orbited the earth, heavier-than-air flight was impossible, and blood transfusions were dangerous. They were proven wrong. Likewise, modern scientists are capable of error. Giving them special treatment in an open debate of ideas is foolish.

Yes, and when scientists discovered the error in the "sun orbiting earth" model, the church at the time was highly resistant to the acceptance of new facts, based largely on the misinterpretation of scripture. Of course modern scientists are capable of error and of course evidence should be carefully examined. It is also foolish to assume that theologians are the sole group of people not prone to error.

Thanks for reading carefully, I'll be happy to dialogue further.

[HAZARD]

14 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The fact that humans evolved from other primates, like the fact that matter is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons is not adding to scripture, but they are true.  There are many things that are true that are not found in scripture.

Evolution is just an observed fact.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.    Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification."    We see that happening constantly.

And yes, humans a few hundred thousand years ago, were demonstrably different than modern humans.   Would you like me to show you some of that?

God is truth.   If you follow Him, the truth shouldn't scare you.

 

Evolution is rubbish inspired by Satan. Cars did not design themselves or build themselves, neither do the robots who riveted them together. An intelligent being designed, and built them. Man, is an intelligent being because God created us in His image and in His likeness, we can think, feel, have emotions, fall in love and we have free moral agency.

Genesis 1: 26-27, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

V. 27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We have a soul, and a spirit; The soul is that invisible part of all living beings that feels, the seat of his affections, emotions, passions, and desires, and which gives him self consciousness and makes him a sentient being (Lev. 23:43; 1 Sam. 22:2; 30:6; 2 Sam. 13:39; 2 Kings 4:27; 23:3; Ps. 107:5, 9, 18, 26; Mark 12:33; Matt. 26:38; John 12:27; Heb. 10:38; Heb. 4:12).

The spirit is that invisible part of all living beings that knows, the seat of his intellect, mind, and will, and that which gives him self-determination and makes him a free moral agent and a rational being (1 Cor. 2:11; Matt. 26:41; Exodus 35:21; Job 38:8, 18; Prov. 20:27; Phil. 4:12; Jas. 2:26; 1 Thess. 5:23).

Animals do not have all these faculties. We are the only species on Earth that can design, and build cities, cars planes, hospitals, write music and make instruments to play music, compose opera's and we are advancing at a rapid rate. One hundred years ago it took months to travel around the world, now it only takes hours. What other living being on earth has these abilities and faculties?

[HAZARD]

Even
Charles Darwin thought his own theory
was "grievously hypothetical" and gave
emotional content to his doubts when
he said, "The eye to this day gives
me a cold shudder." To think the eye
had evolved by natural selection, Darwin
said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd
in the highest possible degree." But
he thought of the same about something
as simple as a peacock's feather, which,
he said, "makes me sick. " Of course,
anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies
of the human eye and other living structures
immediately realizes the problem Darwin
sensed. How could an organ of such
an intricate magnificence ever have
a originated via random chance? Oller
and Omdahl (CH) Page 274

 

Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:

 

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

why did you take the time to delete out the part that a leopard cant change his spots?

It is a turn of phrase, not a scientific treatise. The fact that human skin tone has changed in certain populations confirms this verse is not speaking about scientific fact.

Please answer my question. Do you deny speciation?

[HAZARD]

Darwin's Doubts

---

Questions:

Expanding Doubts

Click Image
to View Gallery

• Did Charles Darwin express any doubts concerning his theory on evolution?
• Where might Darwin have expressed doubts—to friends, in publications, or elsewhere?
• Do any such doubts remain today? ... or is evolution so air tight that all prior doubts are now resolved?

LINK;

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html#top

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Do any such doubts remain today? ... or is evolution so air tight that all prior doubts are now resolved?

Of course - there are many questions still to be resolved. This was of course true in Darwin’s day, but questions are still present. That doesn’t mean that evidence is insufficient to support the theory.