God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Alive]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes. When an organism dies, it is chemically a closed system and entropy takes its course. While it is alive, constant input of energy prevents the same entropy from occurring. Entropy (and the second law of thermodynamics) is an extremely poor argument against evolution.

This does not solve the problem posited.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Alive said:

This does not solve the problem posited.

Then you are going to have to expand on your one-word post. A single word doesn't really explain a problem.

[one.opinion]

25 minutes ago, Alive said:

This does in no way solve the problem posited.

If it rains enough, things get covered. Could you explain why this doesn’t answer your question?

[Alive]

55 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Then you are going to have to expand on your one-word post. A single word doesn't really explain a problem.

Just think it through without the benefit of your notions, applying it to your position regarding living things.

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If it rains enough, things get covered. Could you explain why this doesn’t answer your question?

I am confused. Are you being willfully obtuse? We are talking about a 'local' area flood covering mountains--are we not? Where it took 40 some days for the water to drain? These things aren't possible unless God built retaining walls.

[dhchristian]

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.  

Barbara McClintock discovered the genoplasticity of DNA in the 1940’s, along with the intelligence of cells and the functionality of rapidly changing genetics as a response to damage. The hard core Darwinian orthodoxy rejected her ideas with laughter and scorn, so it took her more than 3 decades to win the Nobel Prize for her discoveries in 1983. In her Nobel speech she stated that cells are intelligently responding to need, which jostled the Darwinians.

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

This article was posted on another forum here which was discussing how science done today is moved by an agenda as opposed to peer review, these examples are examples of findings that contradict the established order of Darwinian evolution at the time and faced opposition by so called "settled science" in Woese's case that is illustrated below. This article was not written by a creation or intelligent design advocate, but someone who sees the fatal flaw in the sciences, these being examples. The fact is the parts you refuse to address are the valid points he is making. For example:

Apparently the word is getting out of the paradigm shift in which the major players in Biology have turned toward more Neo-Lamarckian evolution and away from the random mutation / selection concept of evolution.

Here is what a biographical site writes about Woese:

Biologists resented the discovery’s announcement to the press before it was published in a scientific journal. Also, they saw Woese as an outsider, not a real biologist. They did not understand his unique experimental methods – Woese, shy and retiring, rarely appeared at conferences to publicize and explain his methods.

Following the initial blaze of publicity, Woese continued his research – his search for truth. Meanwhile, the leading biologists he expected would be delighted by his discovery either shunned him or criticized his ‘crackpot’ work.

Woese, forever the introvert, was hurt and angry. He took the rejection of his work personally and became moody and rather bitter about it. But he could also reflect rationally about the controversy. He had read Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he realized his idea was so radical that biologists would need to undergo a paradigm shift to accept it: the processes of rejection and ridicule simply had to be endured, however painful, until acceptance came.

https://www.famousscientists.org/carl-woese/

I Am not writing that I agree with this author, But that I agree with his assessment that science has become agenda driven and moves in paradigms as opposed to the natural peer review which is intended. Until you see this you will not see how Darwinian evolution, and neo Darwinism are dead and dying theories. This is not how science should operate, and goes to show that there are forces at work that do not want science that proves or shows intelligence and or information involved in the formation of life, but that all life comes from random mutation. 

Any time science finds evidence of intelligence, and information in life it is evidence for creation, and not random mutation and life growing from nonlife. 

What we are seeing forming is a new synthesis that accounts for these anamolies in the life sciences, and as with all Hegelian dialectics, the synthesis is far worse than the thesis and antithesis. This is the Philosophical point I am making here. Science should not operate in this manner and when it does it will never arrive at truth. 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Alive said:

Just think it through without the benefit of your notions, applying it to your position regarding living things.

No matter how hard I think about it, "Death" doesn't make any sort of argument. If you want to discuss a viewpoint, it will be helpful to actually articulate it.

2 hours ago, Alive said:

I am confused. Are you being willfully obtuse? We are talking about a 'local' area flood covering mountains

First, I would appreciate it if you kept rude comments to yourself. I've already been called a liar today in another post for stating what is actually in the Bible, and my patience is beginning to wane. I would be happy to continue a polite discussion.

You used the word 'local', but I think a better concept would be 'regional'. In any case, depending on the topology of the region, the "mountains" could have been at a much lower elevation than what we normally consider.

As a general comment, this isn't my personal idea. There are MANY individuals that consider regional flood a viable option for 2 reasons. First, there is insufficient evidence for a global flood approximately 4500 years ago. Second, the language of the Bible does not require that the flood was global.

[Alive]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

No matter how hard I think about it, "Death" doesn't make any sort of argument. If you want to discuss a viewpoint, it will be helpful to actually articulate it.

First, I would appreciate it if you kept rude comments to yourself. I've already been called a liar today in another post for stating what is actually in the Bible, and my patience is beginning to wane. I would be happy to continue a polite discussion.

Point taken, but it was an honest question, because I have assumed you to be an intelligent individual. A local or regional flood water of enough destructive power to kill every living thing and remain unabated for 40 some odd days is not possible without walls to contain it, right? This seems obvious. There was also a boat involved which adds limitations to what could have happened.

You used the word 'local', but I think a better concept would be 'regional'. In any case, depending on the topology of the region, the "mountains" could have been at a much lower elevation than what we normally consider.

Please see above. If this took place, for instance near Ararat, picture this geographically. Two questions:

1. what would hold the water until it topped the peak--whatever the existing height was?

2. wouldn't the water simply flow into the Med? Or on the northern side of the Ararat range and on from there?

Do you see my point?

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

As a general comment, this isn't my personal idea. There are MANY individuals that consider regional flood a viable option for 2 reasons. First, there is insufficient evidence for a global flood approximately 4500 years ago. Second, the language of the Bible does not require that the flood was global.

I understand this isn't your personal idea and that other folks agree with this possibility.

I have offered reasonable challenges..or so I think.

The bottom line is--none of us were there to see it.

 

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, Alive said:

I have offered reasonable challenges..or so I think.

The bottom line is--none of us were there to see it.

They are reasonable challenges, and of course, none of us were eyewitnesses. The reason I started into this sidetrack was the assertion that Christians that disagree with the flood being a global event are rejecting the Word of God. It just plain isn't true.

[Alive]

Just now, one.opinion said:

They are reasonable challenges, and of course, none of us were eyewitnesses. The reason I started into this sidetrack was the assertion that Christians that disagree with the flood being a global event are rejecting the Word of God. It just plain isn't true.

Of that I agree. There are many 'uses of words' or 'literary tools' employed in the scriptures that make sure interpretations difficult without specific instruction from the Lord and I have never seen that happen regarding things like history and prophecy.

Regarding faith, salvation and spiritual growth---yes, but never the other stuff.

I wouldn't deny others' saying such--only that I have never experienced it or know another believer who has.

 

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I said, "that's a lie" not "you're a liar" so get it straight.

Oh good grief... Perhaps no one has explained it to you, but a liar is someone that tells lies. If you accuse someone of lying, then you are accusing them of being a liar.

 

7 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

The waters covered over 23 feet above the mountains, but I guess that fact is also dismissed.

If it truly was a regional flood, then it is entirely possible that 40 straight days of heavy rain could cover the entire region, including whatever "mountains" were present in that region.

12 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I guess the truth is the flood looked like this huh?

Nope.

Please find something relaxing to do so you don't feel compelled to lash out at others for having a difference of opinion. Maybe you could read some Proverbs about sharp tongues.