God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

24 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

If You believe he could, why is it that you deny that he did as he said, despite the evidence?

I don't believe God would create the universe 6,000 years ago with an apparent age of billions of  years. This would seem to be inconsistent with His character, as God is not deceptive.

27 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Right now you deny that what he said was true.

No, what He says is always true, but we sometimes do not understand what He is saying.

 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Six days is not an interpretation, It is what is said in scripture For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: (Exo 20:11)

II Peter 3 is clear that a "day" isn't a limiting time frame that it is for His creation. It appears to me that the instructions given to His people are for commemorative purposes, not as any sort of attempt to "copy" the act of creation. His people were to use the Sabbath day to remember that our labor and toil is good and desirable, but God is always Creator, and always in control.

47 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I will be praying for you, God Bless.

Thank you, your prayers are appreciated. I will pray for you, as well.

[dhchristian]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

31 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

If you can show me how the Bible, citing a non-literal verse, converts it to a literal verse, you've got an argument.   Otherwise, as you learned earlier, the text itself say that the "days" aren't literal ones.

A day only has one morning and evening, a time period has many mornings and evenings Genesis 1 states clearly each day is And the evening and the morning were the first day. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 

Notice they are all singular evenings and mornings, meaning they point to single day. Common sense dictates this, but the Post modern mindset that you have does not accept common sense.

Just like it cannot accept that YEC has been around for millennia and was the doctrine of the culture in Jesus Day, instead you make the postmodernist outlandish claim that YEC is a Modern invention.... I Mean what kind of drugs are you taking? 

With that being said, the Post modernist mindset cannot be reasoned with using common sense, and it is pointless to even debate with you because of that, and your inability to admit you are capable of making an error. So with that there is no reason to continue debating with the reprobate mind that you have.

We have now been over the same thing here for multiple pages and you are still unable to see your own stupidity. Boy they are giving Phd's to anyone nowadays to whoever tows the evolutionists party line, even when they have no common sense.... As Paul wrote, "thinking they are wise, they have become fools..." 

One day God will show you the error of your reprobate mind.

Good bye.

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

31 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

If You believe he could, why is it that you deny that he did as he said, despite the evidence?

I don't believe God would create the universe 6,000 years ago with an apparent age of billions of  years. This would seem to be inconsistent with His character, as God is not deceptive.

What if he preplanned this so that mankind could be saved by faith?  that our faith is not founded upon the Wisdom of man.... Paul affirms this. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor.2:5) 

Do You see this?, and the Omnipotence of God to do as he says? 

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

32 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Right now you deny that what he said was true.

No, what He says is always true, but we sometimes do not understand what He is saying.

Then Why do you trust your understanding over His Word? Read proverbs 3:5-6

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Six days is not an interpretation, It is what is said in scripture For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: (Exo 20:11)

II Peter 3 is clear that a "day" isn't a limiting time frame that it is for His creation. It appears to me that the instructions given to His people are for commemorative purposes, not as any sort of attempt to "copy" the act of creation. His people were to use the Sabbath day to remember that our labor and toil is good and desirable, but God is always Creator, and always in control.

But the Morning and evening (singular) that is added to the genesis one account makes these literal singular days by definition and language used.

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

35 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I will be praying for you, God Bless.

Thank you, your prayers are appreciated. I will pray for you, as well.

Thank you as well.

God Bless. 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:

If you can show me how the Bible, citing a non-literal verse, converts it to a literal verse, you've got an argument.   Otherwise, as you learned earlier, the text itself say that the "days" aren't literal ones.

14 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

A day only has one morning and evening, a time period has many mornings

And a sun is required fo

 

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Boy they are giving Phd's to anyone nowadays to whoever tows the evolutionists party line, even when they have no common sense.

r a morning and evening.   As Christians have noted, there can't be mornings and evenings before there's a sun to have them.  So the text itself tells us that it's not a literal history.

16 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Just like it cannot accept that YEC has been around for millennia and was the doctrine of the culture in Jesus Day

But you can't show us even one person who says they were literal days.   As you learned, YEC was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.   I even showed you that the creationist at the Scopes Trial accepted millions of years, and that evangelical leaders in the 1800s were also accepting millions of years.    No point in denial.

18 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

With that being said, the Post modernist mindset cannot be reasoned with using common sense, and it is pointless to even debate with you because of that, and your inability to admit you are capable of making an error. 

If you continue making false accusations, people will notice.   No one here said they were incapable of making an error; that's your invention.    Calm yourself, and stick with the truth.

19 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

We have now been over the same thing here for multiple pages and you are still unable to see your own stupidity.

Well, you know how stupid old barbarians can be...

20 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Boy they are giving Phd's to anyone nowadays to whoever tows the evolutionists party line, even when they have no common sense....

You probably didn't know, but Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate.   Scott Wood got his PhD, no need to deny his beliefs.    On the other hand, if you want to get into the Insitute for Creation Research graduate school, you have to submit a loyalty oath to creationism to even apply.  

This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.

 

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

What if he preplanned this so that mankind could be saved by faith? 

Since God is truth, it seems impossible that He would fake evidence to make it look as though it were other than it is.   I suppose if you don't think God is always honest, it might make some sense.

Gerald Aardsma has a different idea about that, which bypasses the contradiction of God being dishonest.    You might want to see if that one makes sense to you.   

Gerald Aardsma is a physicist with special qualifications in radiometrics. His "virtual history" is the most recently developed theory of the biblical creation alternatives.34 Aardsma appears to be the first scientist since Gosse to expand upon the omphalos argument in a serious attempt to reconcile the evidence from fossils and long age measurements with the six days of Genesis. As Gosse, he classifies all historical evidence into two categories – that which is not real but appears to have happened before the creation events and that which is actual, happening after the creation.

Aardsma uses the terms "proleptic time" and "virtual history" to explain his theory. Proleptic time – credited to Joseph Scaliger by Aardsma for its first use is very similar to Gosse's "prochronic time" and simply means imaginary time.35 Aardsma states "Proleptic time is the mathematical projection of real historic time back behind Creation. Real historic time only begins at Creation, as the "In the beginning God created" of Genesis 1:1 teaches."36 Virtual history is a term coined by Aardsma to extend history in a way that "time appears to emanate" from it, "when in fact time does not emanate from it at all."37 In optics, for example, a virtual focus is a point from which light rays appear to emanate when actually no light emanates from that point at all. When one looks in a mirror that person is looking at a virtual image. The image of "you" appears real and coming from in the mirror, when actually the light rays emanated from the real you and bounced off the mirror into your eyes. Aardsma notes that virtual history is not unique to proleptic time, but rather "seems to be a general artifact resident within the physical substance produced by creation-type miracles."38 He uses the miracles of Jesus in feeding the 5000, turning water into wine, and healing the man born blind to illustrate virtual history. The Gospel of Mark, for example, records the feeding of the 5000, where Jesus beginning with five loaves and two fish, broke up the loaves and divided the fish among five thousand people until "all ate and were satisfied." After that "they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish."39

Aardsma explains that were we there we would have seen bread that had been cooked and fish with bones, muscle, and veins. But this newly created bread was not actually cooked and the fish did not go through a development process that it takes a fish to become a fish. Could we probe the newly created fish scientifically, we would find “biological cells, and even DNA with a whole genetic blueprint of the fish encoded within it.”40 All these things reflect a virtual history this newly created fish never had. Similarly the turning of water into "good" wine reflects a protracted aging process, yet the wine was created only moments before. And the man born blind after Jesus gives him sight has his eyes, optic nerves, brain cells, and learned visual perception operating as one who has never been blind. The blind man has a virtual history within his visual apparatus of seeing since birth, but actually can see only after the miracle. From examples such as these Aardsma make the important philosophical argument that miracles, of necessity, all have a virtual history.

Aardsma applies the concept of virtual history to the proleptic time we see today, which includes "evidences of pre-Adamic man, dinosaurs, exploding stars, concentrations of radioisotopes in rocks, and all the rest."41 Virtual history is close conceptually to Gosse’s apparent history, but Aardsma differs significantly from Gosse on two aspects. First Aardsma, as a chronologist establishes a date of creation; that being 5176+26 B.C.42 Everything that appears to come before that date occurs in proleptic time and exhibits virtual history only. Physical indications of history after that date are real.

Second, Aardsma importantly argues that the proleptic time we see today is not a direct consequence of the Creation, but of the Fall and the Curse. What we see in proleptic time is the virtual history of dying stars, death and destruction in the fossils. "The Fall was the Serpent's victory and the Curse his spoil, not God's."

http://www.arn.org/docs/booher/biblical-creation-alternatives.html

At least it's logically consistent, or more so than other creationist explanations.   But I don't think so.  It avoids God being dishonest, because Fall supposedly did this.

[omega2xx]

On 12/7/2019 at 10:29 AM, one.opinion said:

Yes, it is obvious that a single celled organism does not have the same gene capacity as an organism with a larger genome. "

And there is no scientific way it could get even one more gene.,

 

However, duplications of DNA segments are common events."

Even if that was true, and it can't be  proved, you would still need  billion of years, not millions for that process to cover all of the   DNA necessary to  the approximately 16 million life forms.  Also there is no evidence that a change in the DNA will allow the species to jump out of the classification it has.  It is necessary for you evos to invent necessary scenarios because you have no verifiable evidence.  How sad.

"Genome analysis has shown that duplication and divergence is a common feature in genome change over time. First, a DNA region containing a gene is duplicated, giving two copies of the same gene. Then, the two versions of the gene can diversify in DNA sequence because the selection pressure does not fall on a single version of a particular gene."

Another necessary invention for which you have no evidence

"We know that gene duplications take place. A good example of this is the OPN1MW gene that is responsible for color vision in the green wavelength range. While many individuals have a single copy of this gene, many people have 2 or even 3 copies of this particular gene."

Another inventions for which you have no evidence.   Have you never heard of "recessive genes"  So even if your necessary inventions is true, a better explanation is recessive genes.

 

On 12/7/2019 at 10:29 AM, one.opinion said:

"The divergence of genes is extrapolated from evidence, rather than directly observed, but the genomic evidence is very strong for this phenomenon, as well."

Do you not get tired of me saying "then produce the evidence?"

 

[omega2xx]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian asks:

If you can show me how the Bible, citing a non-literal verse, converts it to a literal verse, you've got an argument.   Otherwise, as you learned earlier, the text itself say that the "days" aren't literal ones.

In Genesis that is not necessary.  'Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is all literal and you can't prove otherwise. 

And a sun is required for a morning and evening.   As Christians have noted, there can't be mornings and evenings before there's a sun to have them.  So the text itself tells us that it's not a literal history.

No it  isn't and I explained why it is not necessary---All you need is light and the earth rotating.  You still haven't explained how the plants lived million of years with no sun.

But you can't show us even one person who says they were literal days.   As you learned, YEC was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.   I even showed you that the creationist at the Scopes Trial accepted millions of years, and that evangelical leaders in the 1800s were also accepting millions of years.    No point in denial.

I can show you thousands that say the days were literal.  All conservative Christians say hey are literal and since you have only your non-Bible OPINION that make literal more accurate. The age of the earth is irrelevant.  You can't prove its age and the Bible doe snot give its age. You try to make the  OPINIONS of some, as being valid.  That is not the way to make your case.

If you continue making false accusations, people will notice.   No one here said they were incapable of making an error; that's your invention.    Calm yourself, and stick with the truth.

Let me give you some good advice---take you own advice.

You probably didn't know, but Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate.   Scott Wood got his PhD, no need to deny his beliefs.    On the other hand, if you want to get into the Insitute for Creation Research graduate school, you have to submit a loyalty oath to creationism to even apply.  

Nothing wrong with requiring someone being considered for employment making sure they agree with the organizations principles.  That is what should be required.  Besides that does not diminish the PhD and   work experience have. these men have

This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.

The real difference is that neither Creationism nor evolution is based on science.  Except for "after their kind," which refutes evolution,  we do not use the Bible as a science book.

Love, peace, joy

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

And there is no scientific way it could get even one more gene.,

There is, and I just showed you. There are several other ways organisms can acquire new genes, as well. Rather than exhibiting the humility of realizing that a PhD Biologist could actually teach you something about genetics, you just want to argue and turn a blind eye to what I actually explain to you.

If you really want to learn, as you claim you do, then ask questions and listen to answers. I really don't know your motivation to make dialogue as difficult as possible, but you have an advanced ability in that regard.

If you want to learn, prove it. Read and think about what others tell you - before formulating silly responses and making claims that no one will show you any evidence. I'll not be holding my breath, though...

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

In Genesis that is not necessary.  'Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is all literal and you can't prove otherwise. 

St. Augustine already did that.   As you see, it's absurd to assume literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

No it  isn't and I explained why it is not necessary---All you need is light and the earth rotating.  You still haven't explained how the plants lived million of years with no sun.

If you have to redefine the meanings of words to make your new revision work, that's a pretty good clue that it's a bad revision.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I can show you thousands that say the days were literal. 

So you say.  But you haven't yet done that.   I think I know why.

Barbarian observes:

If you continue making false accusations, people will notice.   No one here said they were incapable of making an error; that's your invention.    Calm yourself, and stick with the truth.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Let me give you some good advice---take you own advice.

You were the one who claimed someone here said they were incapable of making an error.   And as you know, that's not true at all.  

Barbarian observes:

You probably didn't know, but Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate.   Scott Wood got his PhD, no need to deny his beliefs.    On the other hand, if you want to get into the Insitute for Creation Research graduate school, you have to submit a loyalty oath to creationism to even apply.  

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Nothing wrong with requiring someone being considered for employment making sure they agree with the organizations principles.

That's not the way it works in a real educational institution.  As you see, legitimate universities don't put such requirements on prospective students, but creationist schools do.   That's the big difference between real universities and creationist schools.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The real difference is that neither Creationism nor evolution is based on science.

As you learned, that's a false statement.   It's why almost all biologists accept the observed fact of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

And there is no scientific way it could get even one more gene.,

There are several ways.  One way is gene duplication, followed by mutation:

Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Another is mutation of non-coding DNA, which apparently is a larger source of new genes than previously realized:

A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/random-non-coding-dna-can-quickly-evolve-to-produce-new-proteins/

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Another inventions for which you have no evidence.   Have you never heard of "recessive genes"  So even if your necessary inventions is true, a better explanation is recessive genes.

Perhaps you don't know what "recessive genes" are.   They have nothing to do with observed gene duplications, or documented genes from non-coding DNA.