God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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

I Believe this by faith, evidence is secondary, Just like you choose to believe evolution, and evidence is secondary. If you would like I could list all the reasons why I believe the accuracy and inerrancy of the Word of God, from which my faith in YEC comes from, or I can spout off the points made by YE creationists here but that would take time, Or the evidence of a creator/designer of the intelligent design camp.... There are lists of evidences in these sources as well, but my point is a philosophical one.

All of these evidences strengthen and do not weaken my belief in YEC. This could become a long drawn out discourse then that no one cares to read then though. 

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

 All of the great Biologists of our time reject Darwin's theory, including Nobel Prize winners such as Barbara McClintock and Luc Montagnier

 

Barbara McClintock's great discovery confirmed Darwinian evolution.   Her discovery of transposons made it clear how certain forms of adaptation could evolve.   She showed an important flaw in classical Mendelism, but nothing she found in any way refuted any of Darwin's four points.    Montagnier is a an advocate of homeopathy, but nothing in his work has refuted Darwin.  

 

And among the greats: 

Watson and Crick (function and structure of DNA)

Alexander Flemming (first antibiotics)

Ernst Mayr

The awards that Mayr received include the National Medal of Science, the Balzan Prize, the Sarton Medal of the History of Science Society, the International Prize for Biology, the Loye and Alden Miller Research Award, and the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science. In 1939 he was elected a Corresponding Member of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. He was awarded the 1946 Leidy Award from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.^[12] He was awarded the Linnean Society of London's prestigious Darwin-Wallace Medal in 1958 and the Linnaean Society of New York's inaugural Eisenmann Medal in 1983. For his work, Animal Species and Evolution, he was awarded the Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 1967.^[13] Mayr was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS) in 1988.^[1] In 1995 he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Distinguished Achievement in the Sciences of the American Philosophical Society.^[14] Mayr never won a Nobel Prize, but he noted that there is no prize for evolutionary biology and that Darwin would not have received one, either. (In fact, there is no Nobel Prize for biology.) Mayr did win a 1999 Crafoord Prize. It honors basic research in fields that do not qualify for Nobel Prizes and is administered by the same organization as the Nobel Prize.

 

27 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The discoverer of archaea, Carl Woese also rejected Darwinism

 

In fact, Woese actually used Darwinian principles in showing that arachae fit nicely into common descent.   His phylogeny:

There are so many factual inaccuracies here, no point in showing more unless you really want me to show you more?   Would that be necessary?

 

[The Barbarian]

19 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Believe this by faith, evidence is secondary,

To be precise, evidence for a very young Earth is non-existent.

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Just like you choose to believe evolution, and evidence is secondary.

No, that's wrong. For a scientist, evidence is everything.   Scientists acknowledge evolution, because it's readily observed.

21 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

If you would like I could list all the reasons why I believe the accuracy and inerrancy of the Word of God

And yet you are unwilling to take His word in Genesis as it is.

 

[The Barbarian]

31 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

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.

Just pointing out that honest and knowledgeable YE creationists willingly admit that there is much evidence for it.    Here's another:

Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist, from Toward a Creationist Understading of Transitional Forms

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

YE creationist and ICR member, Gerald Aardsma:

“Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution Did Not happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by Creation, not by Evolution. ‘In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth,’ not ‘In the beginning God Evolved the heavens and the earth.’ But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.”

...

“We are living in a Creation. The creation we are living in is a story of Godʼs making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality—-He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.”

“The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history—-of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past—-does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bibleʼs claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.”

https://edwardtbabinski.us/scrivenings/2014/young-cosmos-creationists-with-higher.html

[Fran C]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

 

Just got here and can't read from the beginning.

What is evolution to your understanding?

If this is not established, how could it be spoken about?

I DO happen to believe that scientists are having difficulty proving this evolution...but first how do we describe it.

[The Barbarian]

23 minutes ago, Fran C said:

What is evolution to your understanding?

It  has a very specific definition in science.   In Darwin's time, it was "descent with modification."   After the rediscovery of Mendel's work, it is now defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."    That is not generally known by creationists, who often confuse evolution with agencies of evolution (like natural selection) or consequences of evolution (like common descent).

26 minutes ago, Fran C said:

If this is not established, how could it be spoken about?

Couldn't be.   This is why so many people keep walking into walls when they discuss it; they don't know what it is.

26 minutes ago, Fran C said:

I DO happen to believe that scientists are having difficulty proving this evolution...but first how do we describe it.

It's directly observed.   Even major creationist organizations admit that the scientific definition is obviously true.   But as I said, many confuse agencies of evolution or consequences of evolution with the process itself.

 

 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

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.

It is interesting to see that you believe an anonymous Quora post is the best evidence regarding what actual scientists think about evolution. Do you know of any mainstream scientists that have said something to the effect of "Yep, we thought evolution was a good theory for a long time, but we know better now. It is just a theory in crisis now..."

None of these people reject (or rejected) evolution - zero. They may think, as do I, that Darwin's concept doesn't quite match up with what we know today. That does not mean the evolution is in any sort of crisis.

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

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.

Yes, I have corresponded with several of the scientists at the Discovery Institute. The DI scientists accept evolution to varying extents. Michael Behe goes so far as to accept common ancestry of living things.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

A better question would be to ask if anybody of importance who is not an atheism advocate still endorses Darwin's outdated theory.

The current answer is a resounding "no" - precisely because Darwin's speculations are indeed outdated. However, nobody "of importance" denies that evolution occurs. Some may disagree on the implications of evolution, but no scientist denies evolution to some extent.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

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" advocates do not deny evolution, but simply argue that it occurs by other mechanisms.

I could go on, but am pressed for time. All I can say is that it could not be further from the truth to assert that evolution is a "dying" theory.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

If you would like I could list all the reasons why I believe the accuracy and inerrancy of the Word of God

That won't be necessary, I believe in the accuracy an inerrancy of the Word of God, as well. I simply disagree that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 best fits what is evident in God's creation.

[Fran C]

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It  has a very specific definition in science.   In Darwin's time, it was "descent with modification."   After the rediscovery of Mendel's work, it is now defined as "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."    That is not generally known by creationists, who often confuse evolution with agencies of evolution (like natural selection) or consequences of evolution (like common descent).

Couldn't be.   This is why so many people keep walking into walls when they discuss it; they don't know what it is.

It's directly observed.   Even major creationist organizations admit that the scientific definition is obviously true.   But as I said, many confuse agencies of evolution or consequences of evolution with the process itself.

 

 

I looked up allele in a dictionary but don't know what it is.

Do you mean that there can be changes in genes over time?

Is this different from believing that one form of life can become a different form of life?

I believe the first is possible and has been noted and is accepted. I don't believe the second is possible and don't believe it can be proven.

[Fran C]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That won't be necessary, I believe in the accuracy an inerrancy of the Word of God, as well. I simply disagree that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 best fits what is evident in God's creation.

I also hear from scientists that Darwin's theory is being abandoned by some because there are questions that cannot be answered with this theory.

What I find interesting about your post is that you disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3.  I'd have to agree with this since God can INSPIRE something to be written,,,but only at the level of man's understanding at the time.

Then you say that Genesis 1-3 does not fit what is evident in God's creation.

Like what, for instance?

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did.  Until the 60's it was believed that the universe always existed...it is only after the 1960's that scientists accepted that the universe had a beginning...the Big Bang.

Also, the bible states that  the earth was prepared for man.  It certainly does seem that it was fine-tuned to accomodate humanity.

What does NOT seem to fit, in your estimation?