God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If you doubt the scriptures, you are listening to Satan, not God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Even if it seems wrong to you, it is the word of God.  Believe Him.

 

No, your revision won't work.   James is very clear on this.  "Do you see that by works, a man is justified; and not by faith only."

Until you're ready to accept God's word on his terms, you're not accepting His word at all.

"Not by faith only."    Learn to accept it His way.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

Set your pride aside and believe Him.

 

Sure.   God doesn't mean what He says?   You really think so?   God is truth.   Accept it on His terms.

 

I have explained the passage, if you don' accept it, that's your problem.  Under you understanding, there  is a contradiction in God's inspired and inerrant  word.  If you can live with that, be my guest.

 

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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.

Genesis was not written to a specific audience.  It  was written to the world to explain the omnipotence and love of God for His creation and the people who would live in it.

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.

Mose wrote what God dictated to him.  Living in a polytheistic environment played no part  in what is in Genesis.

Respected conservative theologian J I Packer wrote the following:

You have quoted another very respected Christian, but "after their kind' is about evolution not being a fact. Also, when God says He created something, that eliminates evolution.

 

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

They aren't the first 2 people.   They are the last male and last female ancestors of all people living today.  

Genetic analyses of human populations.

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

You aren't God.   This is entirely consistent with scripture.  It's just inconsistent with your modern revision of scripture.

 

You are the one trying to revise Scripture, especially in Genesis 1-3.  There is not even a hint in Scripture that reinforces that nonsense.

If it is consistent, post the verses that support it.

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

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

You are not accepting Genesis as it is,  You are revising it to support evolution, which it does not do.

That's a good example of your revisions of God's word.   He does not say life was created ex nihilo;

Do a little study of the language.  "Created" means out of nothing.

He says the earth and waters brought forth life, not from nothing.  

Try reading more slowly.  It says no such thing

Because your new doctrines require life to be created from nothing, you will not accept His word in Genesis.

My doctrine is not the new one, yours is. 

Which is, as I said, not going to cost your your salvation.   

And your new, false doctrine will not cost you your salvation.

If you make a idol of your new doctrines, and insist that any other reading of Genesis is "anti-God", that might not go so well for you.

Please don't lie about what I have said.  I have not said or even suggested that any other reading of Genesis is anti-God and will not go well for you.  Shame on you.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

 

 

[Uber Genius]

2 hours ago, Alive said:

Thank you. I was too lazy to point out his obvious logical fallacy.

To simplify...we are compelled by honesty, to look for the 'best explanation' within a set.

THe most compelling dynamic to me is the 'information' aspect that biology presents. The nature of 'information'.  Meyers does a 'bang up' (pun intended) job of explaining this. Uncertainty reduction and specificity that is conveyed within DNA and cells. I see the Lord so wonderfully...His Signature.

I leave the 'monkey business' to others.

I have followed the debate since the seventies. I have changed my view on the topic from young earth to ID being the best inference. I have spent years investigating the "God used evolution," inference and find that, although possible, from an evolutionary evidentiary standpoint the record is wanting and arguments are fallacious often over-extending findings to the rediculous. Propaganda, rather than science seems to liter the field in a way that can't be said of other areas of science. 

I don't infer "monkey business," unless I find that someone's educational background is more than sufficient to be familiar with the type of fallacious reasoning I point out. 

Philsophers who teach logic and scientists who use probalistic models and probability, and mathematicians whom teach Bayesian logic don't get a pass but everyone else does. It took me until the middle of my third statistics course to fully grasp what was covered in my first semester. Further, in grad school, I had to refresh that knowledge in order to make proper conclusions about causal relationships in my research. This is tough stuff and there is some very convincing, albeit fallacious, articles by supposed experts on the Internet. 

Any engagement with the New Atheists material will expose us to scientists and philosophers whom abuse their position of authority to shield false claims. Most in our culture don't have the requisite training to do the crap-detection. 

[Behold]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I just don't think "kind" is defined by the Bible like modern young earth creationists define it. Biblically, there is zero reason that kinds could not change over time. A claim otherwise requires the addition of personal interpretation, without any need from the Bible or from nature to do so.

 

"i just don't think,............ kind is defined".   You said......and i quoted you...

Well what if you are wrong?  What do you think about that?

What iF God is right and you are wrong?

What do you think about that?

What if Science is "ever learning but never able to come to the Truth",  , as Jesus is "THE TRUTH"....>John 14:6.    What do you think about that?

Let me show you something about "kind"....>"made after its Kind".......means, completed, perfected, fully developed.    No evolution necessary need apply.

Only God can create something from NOTHING..... that is "after its Kind", because only from the mind of God came the imagination that created  the 1st "original" = ."after its kind".   Colossians 1:16-18

The "kind"...... is God's original idea, created as a living thing.   And only God can both imagine it from "scratch", and then create it as the original, (after its kind).....that is ALIVE.......Living.

This is God's territory.... God Realm.......God Tier........Creating an original life form from imagination only...=  into LIVING EXISTENCE.......>Is something only GOD can do.

Science will never do this, as they are not of the same capacity as God, tho they do try to fake it .

Look at a Red Rose.   Ever seen one?   "after its kind"..in its original form ?????......the First one was red, just like the last one..    No seed necessary.   Just God and Him imagining it and saying....>"let there BE"...and then, there it appears.  All Red and "smells pretty"...

Can Science do that?  Can you do that?

Not quite.   All "science" can do, is take a preexisting part of a Rose and reproduce it........but that is not what God did........now is it?

Only God can do that......and ditto all of Creation that was all created "AFTER ITS KIND", and that includes the stars, and the earth below your feet.   It all came from the imagination of the CREATOR, as He is  the Extant "Artist of LIFE", who simply thinks all this stuff up, and CALLS THOSE THINGS THAT BE NOT, INTO "AFTER ITS KIND"... .and you SEE THEM ALL.

GOD IS AWESOME.

SCIENCE and Scientific Theory, ..............not so much.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Behold

[Uber Genius]

A note on concordism.

condordism is defined as reading modern ideas back into an ancient texts specifically in the area of science to make the two accounts consistent.

the obvious problem is that it is a known fallacy (anachronism), and secondly, modern science continues to gain knew knowledge and reject old theories(at the rate of funerals of the most revered scientist that held the view), admittedly slowly. 

If if we were to produce a Bible that was in concord with "modern science," we would have thousands of different textual versions of same!

From an exegetical standpoint it seems we need to stop reading in modern views into the authors of ancients as if inerrancy had anything to do with God dictating scriptures with scientific revelations embedded in them. No view of innerrancy hold that view.

ancient authors held ancient views consistent with cosmologies of their Mesopotamian counterparts. They are not univocal however. 

 

Ancient Biblical authors took great pains to engage the worldview of their contemporaries and set the record straight. The accounts that are similar mock the Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation notions while holding some of the same false beliefs cosmologically, such as the idea of a firmament. So what? Our current cosmological models are riddled with false beleifs. No one in science doubts that 100 years from now we will have a starkly different view of cosmology then we now have. 

[one.opinion]

56 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If the offspring are the same as its parents, there is no evolution.

Here is what you continue to ignore - there were clear changes in the population over time. What started as ten lizards introduced to a new island became a large population of unknown number, that were obviously different from the original population those 10 came from. The offspring are not the same, but in the process of evolution. I am using a definition of evolution used by scientists, you are using a definition of your own personal preference. Which one do you think is more suitable to scientific work?

59 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It results in different traits in the offspring, but it  Of course there is speciation, but it doe snot result  in an new species.

For the 32nd time in this thread - by definition, speciation results in new species.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Yes, evolution is an observed phenomenon. And yes, even speciation is an observed phenomenon. The claim that "evolution has never been observed" is just plain incorrect.

You usual example of making a statement but nit supporting it with any evidence.

You must have skipped the evidence I pasted in the exact same post. I cannot read these posts directly to you so I cannot help it if you just gloss over the evidence.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

When two portion of a population are no longer able to mate, that is one way for new species to develop. Yes, speciation can occur from a single mutation (if you include the gamete mistake as a single mutation). Interbreeding is not related.

There is no evidence a mutaion caused speciation and interbreeding is a factor in a species not being able o reproduce.  It is common in dogs, coming from pet mills.

Yes, interbreeding can lead to sterility effects. It does not, however, lead to speciation.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

The evidence is clearly verifiable. Verify - "To establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of". The evidence is absolutely verifiable. Anyone with the means to do so can go and check for themselves.

not true.  In speciation of ring species the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. 

I provided evidence for evolution in the lizards. Salamanders and gulls do not have anything to do with the example that clearly shows verifiable evidence.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

While it is true that the specific molecular changes that took place are unknown, the verifiable evidence is clear. The lizard population on the "new" island has undergone changes in a few decades that demonstrate heritable change over time (the definition of evolution).

No change of species, no evolution.  That supports "after their kind," which refutes evolution.

As much as you want it to be true, you cannot decide how scientists use the term "evolution". No, evolution does not require a change in species. We can observe it during the process before two distinct species are formed.

"After their kind" does no such thing. Progeny are always the same kind as their parents, even if they differ slightly in their traits. Now a dog giving birth to lizard would violate the "after their kind" observation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that states that a kind cannot change over time.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

By a standard definition, these lizards have demonstrated evolution. Only by redefining evolution can you say "evolution has not been observed".

Only by using an incorrect definition, can you say it has been observed.

You have repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic science. I don't think you are a fair judge of what definition is used by the scientific community.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Genesis was not written to a specific audience.

No, there was a definite audience for the initial writing. Just because we can still use scripture does not mean there was not an original intended audience.

 

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Mose wrote what God dictated to him.  Living in a polytheistic environment played no part  in what is in Genesis.

Yes, the author (likely Moses) wrote by the inspiration of God. However, we do not know if it was dictated. And the polytheistic environment certainly did have a role in what God wanted His people to know. You are arguing for the sake of it, without any reason to do so.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Respected conservative theologian J I Packer wrote the following:

You have quoted another very respected Christian, but "after their kind' is about evolution not being a fact. Also, when God says He created something, that eliminates evolution.

In your mind, perhaps, but apparently not Packer's. I'm not trying to convince you that I AM right, but that I COULD BE right. And Packer agrees that I could be right.

Edited December 19, 2019 by one.opinion

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

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

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You are not accepting Genesis as it is,  You are revising it to support evolution, which it does not do.

See below.  You added "ex nihilo" to his word on creation of life; and He specifically says life was created from previously-created matter.  That's a good example of your revisions of God's word.   He does not say life was created ex nihilo;

Genesis 1:24 And God said: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

You merely changed His word to fit your own preferences.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Do a little study of the language.  "Created" means out of nothing.

Do a little study of Genesis.   He says the Earth brought forth animals as He intended.   If you think that's wrong, take it up with Him.   You're "ex nihilo" definition of "created" is your own private definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

Because your new doctrines require life to be created from nothing, you will not accept His word in Genesis.  Let God do it His way, and accept it as it is.