God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

56 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

He cited these:

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.

There is no such thing as an intermediate species, Creation is not a theory and it does not mention fossils, because fossils do not  show evolution.  Many evolutionist agree the fossil record doe snot support evolution.  Here are some comment by evolutionists:

Stephen M. Stanly:  The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing  a major morpholo9gic transition---Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p. 39.

Stephen Gould:  I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.  we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does  not really display it.  Natural history, Vol. 93, Feb 1984, p. 23.

Ernst Mayr:  The fossil record remains woefully inadequate;  "What evolution is" p.13

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

No point in denying the fact.   If you think Dr.Wise is lying, you can easily check on every one of them.   All documented transitional series.   At some point, you're going to have to make an accommodation to reality.

I have  never accused him of lying.  I just do think he has any real evidence.

In this case, Dr. Jeon documents observed endosymbiosis, an important evolutionary process.   No point in denying the fact.   If he had not provided the data to the journal, it would not have published his report.

Not true those journals will print anything they think helps the cause of evolution.

Barbarian asks:

The reason we know plants and animals evolved separately from eukaryotes that were neither plants nor animals are:

1. Genetic data showing the phylogenies of eukaryotes.   And we can show the method works by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.

2. Such organisms, still exist in nature.

Would you like to see that?

I suspected you didn't really want to see evidence.    As you now realize, there is abundant evidence for common descent; even your fellow YE creationists admit it.

If they diverged from a common ancestor, as genetic data shows, common descent is confirmed.

Jesus loves me  this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

Plants and animals did not evolve.  This I know for the Bible tells me so.

 

Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2004 May; 2(2): 70–76.

Emerging Genomic and Proteomic Evidence on Relationships Among the Animal, Plant and Fungal Kingdoms

John W. Stiller

Abstract

Sequence-based molecular phylogenies have provided new models of early eukaryotic evolution. This includes the widely accepted hypothesis that animals are related most closely to fungi, and that the two should be grouped together as the Opisthokonta. Although most published phylogenies have supported an opisthokont relationship, a number of genes contain a tree-building signal that clusters animal and green plant sequences, to the exclusion of fungi. The alternative tree-building signal is especially intriguing in light of emerging data from genomic and proteomic studies that indicate striking and potentially synapomorphic similarities between plants and animals. This paper reviews these new lines of evidence, which have yet to be incorporated into models of broad scale eukaryotic evolution.

Here's the phylogeny of the Eukarya, based on genetic data:

 

 

 

It is not based on genetic evidence and man-made diagrams made by men with an agenda are not evidence.

Love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

23 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That is false. Evidence is evidence, regardless of whether or not you look at it. You seem to think that if you refuse to acknowledge evidence, that it somehow ceases to be evidence.

Of course evidence is evidence, but posting what someone did  and or said, is not scientific evidence.  Evidence must include the science that allows it to happen.  That is always missing in your comments.

Typing "YAWN" is intentionally insulting and dismissive. No way to argue that in good faith.

I have told you why I use yawn and it is not insulting.  For you to be right about this, you need to have the ability o read minds, and you don't have that.

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.

Wonderful.  Now post the evidence they used to validate what they say.

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

If you claim it is not evidence because it isn't a direct link to the original, peer-reviewed paper, I'll be happy to supply that for your perusal.

That would make me happy.

No, that's an obvious fact. Regardless, Jesus Christ calls me to turn the other cheek, and I did not do that when I insulted you. For that, I sincerely apologize. I will not apologize for noting the fact that you are belligerent and rude.

I don't care if you apologize for that or not.  You are not omniscient and can't read my mind.  Therefor what you think is only your OPINION.   if you think I am belligerent a d rude, that is OK with me, but i KNOW better.

apology accepted.

Love, peace, joy

Edited December 9, 2019 by omega2xx

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

apology accepted.

Thank you. Then let's move on.

You didn't explain why the de novo gene development in Oryza isn't evidence of a mechanism for the formation of new genes.

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.

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

If you claim it is not evidence because it isn't a direct link to the original, peer-reviewed paper, I'll be happy to supply that for your perusal.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

It is not based on genetic evidence and man-made diagrams made by men with an agenda are not evidence.

I just showed you that they were.  

Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2004 May; 2(2): 70–76.

Emerging Genomic and Proteomic Evidence on Relationships Among the Animal, Plant and Fungal Kingdoms

John W. Stiller

Abstract

Sequence-based molecular phylogenies have provided new models of early eukaryotic evolution. This includes the widely accepted hypothesis that animals are related most closely to fungi, and that the two should be grouped together as the Opisthokonta. Although most published phylogenies have supported an opisthokont relationship, a number of genes contain a tree-building signal that clusters animal and green plant sequences, to the exclusion of fungi. The alternative tree-building signal is especially intriguing in light of emerging data from genomic and proteomic studies that indicate striking and potentially synapomorphic similarities between plants and animals. This paper reviews these new lines of evidence, which have yet to be incorporated into models of broad scale eukaryotic evolution.

You seem to have retreated to merely denying facts.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I certainly have.  EVERY verse in the Bible that has a number ALWAYS means 24 hours.  Can you show  me one that doesn't?  I also showed you some verses where yom, can only refer to one day.

And there are many others where it means "always", "forever", "in my day", "unspecified length of time", etc.   You just picked one that you like, and insisted it's right.  

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And there are many others where it means "always", "forever", "in my day", "unspecified length of time", etc.   You just picked one that you like, and insisted it's right.  

Not true, none of the verse you mention have a number associated with them.  Only in those cases can yom mean more than 24 hours, and you can't post a verse where yom  has a number that means more than 24 hours.  I did insist it was right because that is how the context determines how long the yom is.  You have ignored how the language is used.  There are many more where yom can only mean 24 hours. 

Gen 8:4 - And in the seventh month, on the 17th yom of the month...

Ex  32:30 - And it came about on the next yom, that Moses said to  the people...

Lev 7:16 - "But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a free will offering, it shall be eaten on the yom that he offers.

There is far more uses like these than on the examples you offered.

 You continue avoiding to explain how plant life survived  for millions  of years  with no sun.  That is because you can't explain it, because it would be impossible.

love peace joy

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

 You continue avoiding to explain how plant life survived  for millions  of years  with no sun.  That is because you can't explain it, because it would be impossible.

You still don't get it.   As the early Christians realized, this wasn't about time; the "yom" weren't days or millenia; they were just categories of creation.    There was a sun long before there was an Earth.

If the disparity between your interpretation of Genesis and reality is a problem for you, perhaps the solution of YE creationist Gerald Aardsma would help:

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."43

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

Looks vulnerable to Occam's razor, but it's logically consistent.

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You still don't get it.   As the early Christians realized, this wasn't about time; the "yom" weren't days or millenia; they were just categories of creation.    There was a sun long before there was an Earth.

The early Christians realized no such thing and you can't quote a verse supporting that guess.   . Yom is about time.  Since the word can me 1 day or an extended period of time, the context determines if it refers to a day or to an extended period of time. You are completely ignoring how the usage can determines the length of time it  indicates.

I will explain it again, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first 2 times.  When yom is used with a number, it ALWAYS means a 24 hour day.. No exceptions.  Even when it does noy have a number it still  usually means a 24 hour day.  I gave you

several example, but facts don't seem to deter your from your false agenda.

If the disparity between your interpretation of Genesis and reality is a problem for you, perhaps the solution of YE creationist Gerald Aardsma would help:

I am not having a problem interpreting Genesis, you are. and what Aardsma says is a bunch of non-Biblical  nonsense, that can't can't be sujpported from Scripture.  Believing him is what is giving you a problem in understanding Genesis.

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."43

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

Looks vulnerable to Occam's razor, but it's logically consistent.

Not even close.  As I said, it is non-Biblical nonsense.  There is not even a hint of proleptic time in the Bible.   Not only that, time did not begin until God created it.  Therefore proleptic time is not possible.

Would you like to know  more about how to interpret Genesis?

love, peace, joy

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by omega2xx

[one.opinion]

44 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

When yom is used with a number, it ALWAYS means a 24 hour day..

There are Bible scholars that disagree with this. There are apparently exceptions to this conclusion in a few Old Testament examples. Here is a comment from Dr. Rodney Whitefield.

Quote

Recently, a reader of my book Reading Genesis One 1 asked about the use of a number with the Hebrew word “yom.” Specifically, I was asked to comment on the statement, “Day” with numerical adjectives in Hebrew always refers to a 24 hour period.”, which appears in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in reference to Genesis 1:5. The quoted statement is one which is commonly offered to justify eliminating the long “extended period of time” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” in Genesis 1:3-31. Eliminating the “extended period” or “age” meaning would then give support for a 24 hour interpretation for the duration of the creative times. In the first chapter of Genesis, the singular Hebrew word “yom” appears with a number at the conclusion of each of the creative times. Subsequently, in this article, “yom” refers to this singular Hebrew word form. In order to illustrate the differing opinions which have been offered as interpretation, I will very briefly quote two well-known Bible scholars about the numbering of the word “yom.” Both scholars hold “extended period” or “age” views of the meaning of “yom” as describing the duration of the creative times. Subsequently, I will explain why the opinion of these two scholars has substantial support in the Hebrew, in contradiction to the claim in the MacArthur Study Bible.

There is much more at the following link: https://godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf

Quote

Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982: “ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.” Gleason Archer was Associate Editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. In the quote above, the first two italicized letters ha of words like harison indicate the Hebrew prefix “heh” meaning “the.”

Quote

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999: “Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar “days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by one.opinion

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not even close.  As I said, it is non-Biblical nonsense.

It's YE creationism. So I'd have to agree with you.  But you have to admit it's less weird than most other forms of YE creationism.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

There is not even a hint of proleptic time in the Bible. 

That wouldn't be an impediment for a YE creationist.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not only that, time did not begin until God created it.  Therefore proleptic time is not possible.

Aardsma is a physicist, so he would know more than you or I.   But my thought is "why not just accept the evidence as it is?"

Bottom line, it's no stranger than other new revisions by YE creationists.