God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Alive]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This video is over an hour. Do you have particular points that you want to follow up on?

Not really, my friend. I do think it will be profitable for you to watch and then perhaps the follow up videos. He actually deals with many issues in depth.

The Lord has given him a sharp intellect and he has drawn on the work of the scientific community spanning many decades.

I have been blessed in studying this stuff and more. I am convinced. No-- I guarantee that the more science observes, the more God will be seen and obvious.

[omega2xx]

On 12/17/2019 at 8:12 AM, The Barbarian said:

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you:

"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."

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

You insist in  using one person as presenting the truth. I can name a dozen that reject what Wise believes.  Predicting fossils does not prove evolution, that is silly. You need to prove some are intermediates.  that he hasn't done that. 

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Alive said:

I guarantee that the more science observes, the more God will be seen and obvious.

That has certainly been my experience. The more I understand, the more awed and humbled I am by His creation.

[Alive]

Meyers deals with many things. He has addressed most of the issues that surround evolutionary biology and chemistry.

His main thrust is the evidence of intelligent design in the DNA molecule and living cells. He focuses much on the 'information' dynamic that shows incredible specificity of purpose juxtaposed against 'undirected' chance. He brings to bear the work of a great many scientists in math, biology and physics and uses the scientific communities own research in His arguments.

God made him very good at this and he has debated a great many scientists in the other camps. As is always the case, the internet is rife with erroneous assertions about him and his work, but one must read his stuff and watch the debates in order to know.

BTW--he does not profess to be a YE guy and neither does he come at this from a theology footing--although he is a professing christian.

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

I'm just Genesis as it is, without the revisions of creationism.

You are  not.  You must ignore The word "created" which means ex nihlo, out  of nothing, for sea life, birds, cattle, beasts and man. 

Nope. Genesis says nothing about evolution or creationism.   Creationists have to revise "after their kind" to fit it into their new doctrines.  Creationism accepts some of His word and rejects the rest.

Actually evolutionists must revise "fter their  kind" which is so simple even a cave man can understand it,  to fit their new doctrine.  Creationism is not a new doctrine. so they have to lie about that also.

As you learned, evolutionary theory needs no revision.   God says he created different kinds, but does not say how He did it. 

Sure it does---He spoke it all into being.

The evidence, as your fellow creationists admit, is that they evolved.   

As usual you insist  on trying to  use one person to verify what you believe.  Why don't you believe the dozen or more I can name, that reject evolution?  You have  it backwards.

Again, there are  creationists who have their own ideas of scripture, but who do not presume to project lack of faith on Christians who do not agree with them.    They are not undermining God's word, and are not seeking to sow conflict among us.   

Don't try to accuse me of something I have not done.  This discussion is about evidence, not one's interpretation of Scripture.

 

 

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes.   For example, I don't see any reason to believe you lack faith in God.

have i questioned your faith?

It is the creationists,  who insist that it is "anti-God" to say that "after their kind"  means anything different than the creationist interpretation, who are sowing conflict among us.

As usual your brush is way too wide,  Some may, most do not. 

Love, peace, joy

 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Alive said:

His main thrust is the evidence of intelligent design in the DNA molecule and living cells. He focuses much on the 'information' dynamic that shows incredible specificity of purpose juxtaposed against 'undirected' chance. He brings to bear the work of a great many scientists in math, biology and physics and uses the scientific communities own research in His arguments.

Right - as I mentioned earlier, Meyer's arguments are poised against an atheistic version of evolution. In theistic evolution, an Almighty Creator could easily arrange nature in such a way that His desired outcomes could evolve. Personally, I think it is more likely that He created the first cells intact, but He could have certainly allowed chemical evolution to bring about the first cells, as well.

[omega2xx]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:56 AM, The Barbarian said:

It's unlikely that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y chromosome Adam" were the actual Adam and Eve.   But it very clearly demonstrates that all people living today, can be descended from two real people.   The two that science has identified came much later than the first humans.

Who  has science identified as the first 2 people and how did they identify them and why do you reject what God says?

[omega2xx]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Right - as I mentioned earlier, Meyer's arguments are poised against an atheistic version of evolution. In theistic evolution, an Almighty Creator could easily arrange nature in such a way that His desired outcomes could evolve. Personally, I think it is more likely that He created the first cells intact, but He could have certainly allowed chemical evolution to bring about the first cells, as well.

Then why didn't God say so instead of saying He creating them as we see them today?

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Right - as I mentioned earlier, Meyer's arguments are poised against an atheistic version of evolution. In theistic evolution, an Almighty Creator could easily arrange nature in such a way that His desired outcomes could evolve. Personally, I think it is more likely that He created the first cells intact, but He could have certainly allowed chemical evolution to bring about the first cells, as well.

Of course anything is possible for God. I have looked at the relevant math associated with the chemistry of 'chance'.

Its an eye opener. Meyers pulls together probability mechanics and the numbers worked out by a bunch of math guys to show this. The math is presented against the back drop of the available time since the so-called Big Bang and breaks it down to the number of 'opportunities' available for a thing to happen. For an event to occur.

In  my own words:

 

Not to be confused with Darwin's Theory of evolution or Neo Darwinism.

 

Note: numbers in parenthesis are exponents.

 

A Planck Length: consider a particle or dot .01mm in size, which is the smallest the unaided human eye can facilitate. If that dot were as large as the observable universe, then another dot that size juxtaposed within the universe provides a scale for a Planck Length…10(-33) centimeters

 

A quanta of time: as measured by the time it takes light to travel that distance. Wicked short period of time and the shortest span of time that makes sense within our understanding of quantum physics and the shortest period of time within which a ‘physical effect’ can occur.

 

Since the ‘big bang’: there have been approximately 10(140) of these units of time as worked out by a guy named Bill Dembski. So, there have been basically 10(140) units of time in the universe since the big bang where a physical effect could happen. That many ‘opportunities’ so to speak for a thing to occur. Dembski calculates this by factoring the number of elementary particles in the universe 10(80), times the number of seconds since the big bang 10(17) times the number of possible interactions per second 10(43).

This is referred to as the total probabilistic resources of the observable universe.

 

Other mathematicians have calculated the probabilistic resources to be more restrictive—University Physicist Bret Van de Sande at 2.6 x 10(92) and MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd at 10(120).

 

What are the chances (all of the many other necessary factors aside) of a simple 150 unit sequence of amino acids coming together to form a viable functional protein? 10(164)

 

To put that into perspective comparing 10(140) to 10(164) ——the second number is roughly 24 orders of magnitude greater than the first or roughly a trillion, trillion times larger.

 

The above is only a small portion of the relevant probability mechanics involved in ‘first life’ occurring by ‘chance alone’.

 

Staggering, isn’t it?

 

The relevant information borrowed from sources cited in the book by Stephen Meyer ’Signature in the Cell’.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

Then why didn't God say so instead of saying He creating them as we see them today?

I can only make a guess here, but here it is. The specific details to the original audience were of lesser importance than making it evident that God was creator. If Moses wrote the creation account in Genesis 1-3, he did it for an original audience that had just spent the last 400 years submerged in the Egyptian culture that was highly polytheistic. Moses made a point like this - "You know all those gods that the Egyptians worshiped? That was a bunch of lies. There is one true God and He created everything there is". If He did create through the process of evolution as I think He did, it would have distracted from the point to get into meticulous detail that the original audience lacked the knowledge base to understand.

Respected conservative theologian JI Packer wrote the following:

Quote

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I maintain it in print, but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other.