Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

@Fran C, thank you for the good questions.

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

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.

Evolution as Darwin proposed has been abandoned by scientists for decades. The abandonment of evolution does occur in a very small percentage of scientists, but it is not as widespread as some (in ID or YEC camps) tell us to believe.

There are unanswered questions associated with every single scientific theory in existence, this is not unique to the theory of evolution.

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

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.

Yes, the human author(s) of Genesis, Moses or otherwise, had no concept of even cells, let alone proteins and DNA and other macromolecules integral to cellular life.

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

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

Like what, for instance?

An overly literalistic interpretation (in my opinion) of Genesis would be that God created the universe roughly 6,000 years ago, when there is solid evidence in several areas of science that shows that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. While it may be reasonable to assume 6,000-10,000 years since Adam and Eve were on the earth, evidence suggests that the planet, and the history of life on the planet, are far older.

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

It certainly does seem that it was fine-tuned to accomodate humanity.

To me, the fine-tuning of the universe (and laws of nature) are compelling evidence of a Creator. I believe the importance of Genesis 1-3 is to establish God as Creator, establish humanity as a special creation in the image of God, the choice of Adam and Eve that brought sin into the world, and the promise of a Redeemer that would enter the natural realm to die in our place. I believe that those that focus on the particulars of the daily account are, to some extent, missing the big picture because they are focusing too much on the details written by humans without the benefit of modern scientific knowledge.

 

1 hour ago, Fran C said:

What does NOT seem to fit, in your estimation?

Specifically, the 144-hour creation period about 6,000 years ago does not match what God has revealed to us about His creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

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

It's a different version of a gene.   We all have pretty much the same genes, but we all have different versions of them.

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

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

That's what evolution is.

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

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

No.  As Darwin noted, every organism is different than its parents.   Does that mean a new species can eventually evolve?  Yep.  Most creationist organizations already admit that. They just think there's some kind of limit, some organisms that have changed so much that they can't change any more.   Problem is, no one can find those limits, and no one has found such an organism, yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

59 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

@Fran C,

Quote

thank you for the good questions.  HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE QUOTE FEATURE.  SORRY....

This is interesting since it's still taught in school.  Maybe the text books need to be updated??!  It never did make much sense to me, and, of course, the fact that the universe is only 14 billion years old will work agains Darwin's theory since time was of the essence.

Quote

There are unanswered questions associated with every single scientific theory in existence, this is not unique to the theory of evolution.

Yes, the human author(s) of Genesis, Moses or otherwise, had no concept of even cells, let alone proteins and DNA and other macromolecules integral to cellular life.

An overly literalistic interpretation (in my opinion) of Genesis would be that God created the universe roughly 6,000 years ago, when there is solid evidence in several areas of science that shows that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. While it may be reasonable to assume 6,000-10,000 years since Adam and Eve were on the earth, evidence suggests that the planet, and the history of life on the planet, are far older.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.  The bible wasn't meant to be a science book although God did inspire men to write how things began and the rise and fall of man; sin entering into the world and the solution, as you've stated.

I've also had the though that maybe cavemen did exist and God decided to make man something special.  I don't believe that we could know for sure, although this thought does go against scripture.

 

To me, the fine-tuning of the universe (and laws of nature) are compelling evidence of a Creator. I believe the importance of Genesis 1-3 is to establish God as Creator, establish humanity as a special creation in the image of God, the choice of Adam and Eve that brought sin into the world, and the promise of a Redeemer that would enter the natural realm to die in our place. I believe that those that focus on the particulars of the daily account are, to some extent, missing the big picture because they are focusing too much on the details written by humans without the benefit of modern scientific knowledge.

Not only do we not know about the 6 days of creation, but have we ever realized there are two different creation accounts in Genesis?

But I agree with you that it's the big picture we should be looking at.

God only lets us know what we need to know.  I do wish we knew more....but I believe we know enough.

 

 

Specifically, the 144-hour creation period about 6,000 years ago does not match what God has revealed to us about His creation.

You mean that the 144 hour creation period does not match because we know the earth is older then 6,000 years old....

I agree.

 

Quote

Evolution as Darwin proposed has been abandoned by scientists for decades. The abandonment of evolution does occur in a very small percentage of scientists, but it is not as widespread as some (in ID or YEC camps) tell us to believe.[/QUOTE]

 

Edited by Fran C
ERRORS
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's a different version of a gene.   We all have pretty much the same genes, but we all have different versions of them.

That's what evolution is.

No.  As Darwin noted, every organism is different than its parents.   Does that mean a new species can eventually evolve?  Yep.  Most creationist organizations already admit that. They just think there's some kind of limit, some organisms that have changed so much that they can't change any more.   Problem is, no one can find those limits, and no one has found such an organism, yet.

 

From my understanding, creationists or ID believers (same thing) believe in evolution but in microevolution.

I do believe that many scientists are abandoning the idea of a form of life becoming a different form of life.  Or, for that matter, that life began in the primordial soup.

After the discovery of DNA it seems improbable that so much information could change over such a short period of time.

I do agree with this.  Dr. James Tour has explained this really well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

@one.opinion

Hi O,

I had a lot  of trouble with the quotes feature...don't know why.

The short story is:   I agree with everything you've said: The age of the earth, the reason for the story of Genesis, etc.

Sorry I lost everything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

13 minutes ago, Fran C said:

Dr. James Tour has explained this really well...

Dr. Tour does supply a compelling case against the abiotic synthesis of the first cells. In my own estimation, the evidence we currently have about this process is scant. I think God supernaturally creating the first cells is even more plausible than the development of the first cells by purely natural means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 minutes ago, Fran C said:

The short story is:   I agree with everything you've said: The age of the earth, the reason for the story of Genesis, etc.

Good! I like it when intelligent people agree with me!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

 

Dr. Tour does supply a compelling case against the abiotic synthesis of the first cells. In my own estimation, the evidence we currently have about this process is scant. I think God supernaturally creating the first cells is even more plausible than the development of the first cells by purely natural means.

I don't believe science has any evidence as to how the first cells came to existence.  When I listen to Dr. Tour, it seems impossible.

Did you hear that there was some bacteria "created" in a lab about a week ago?  The language was such that I didn't understand it really well, but, of course, they made it somehow out of existing material.  From what I could understand, they just changed something about the DNA.  I wouldn't call that creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, Fran C said:

Did you hear that there was some bacteria "created" in a lab about a week ago?

The "synthetic cells" I have heard about in the past simply had their DNA replaced. This isn't easy, but MUCH easier than assembling an entire cell from scratch.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

From my understanding, creationists or ID believers (same thing) believe in evolution but in microevolution.

Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies in a single species.  Macroevolution is speciation.   Most creationist groups accept speciation.   They just argue that it's "not real evolution."

 

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

I do believe that many scientists are abandoning the idea of a form of life becoming a different form of life.  Or, for that matter, that life began in the primordial soup.

Speciation is directly observed, so that's not a concern.   The last world-class biologist who doubted evolution of new taxa died about 1918.    Even many IDers now concede that evolution is a fact.   Since God has said that the Earth brought forth living things, I can only accept that He knew what he was talking about.   The biggest clue is that the one organelle that is absolutely essential to life as we know it, is the simplest organelle, and self-organizes from components known to exist on the early Earth.

 

 

 

external-content.duckduckgo.com.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...