God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

From the introduction of the article I linked:

 

Yup--I saw that. Please consider again everything I have written about this.

"To fit all of what the record says" One of those 'items' is the amount of time it took for the waters to recede, this discounts a violent local event from a water source of any natural kind, which would simply flow away and find a level based on surrounding terrain.

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is absolutely incorrect. Either admit error or show me what the "fin gene" is.

Since sea life has fins, it is not necessary to show you what the gene fin is.  Not  only that, since each sea animal has different specific fins  needed for its survival, that indicates there is a specific gene for each different fin.

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It would have been more accurate of me to state that "gene products" interact with each other. Additionally, the gene products often interact with other genes. A blanket statement that they "do not interact with each other" displays a profound lack of familiarity with molecular biology.

The only product of a gene is to give the offspring the trait for which it was created.  To say it interacts with other genes is the usual evolution rhetoric not supported by evidence,

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is a schematic of gene interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the same single-celled yeast used in brewing and baking.

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=933

A caption for this figure reads as follows:

Interaction networks in multicellular eukaryotes like humans are much more complex.

Your figure proves nothing except what someone thinks it does. Anyone who thinks pictures are evidence has no idea what constitutes verifiable evidence

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You basically have no idea what you are arguing about. You are simply making false claims like "speciation does not make new species" and "genes do not interact" without even a shred of evidence to back up your arguments. Yet you expect others to spoon-feed you evidence and explanations and reject them when they are offered.

Saying speciation creates a new species actually violates a basic doctrine of evolution, which you lack of understanding of.  Evolution preaches that at some time an A will become a B and later on the B will become a C. IOW the species will change and continue to change.    In the study of salamanders and gulls, the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls.  How is that the start of a new species?  The inability to reproduce does not make a new species,  That can happes with too much interbreed in a species.

 

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I eagerly anticipate all of the evidence you have that disproves evolution and all of the evidence you have that supports a 6,000-10,000 year old creation. 

Since the Bible does not mention the age of the earth, I never try to support that.  I eagerly anticipate all of the evidence  that supports the universe to be billion of years old.  It seems you are not aware all dating methods, except C14 are based on assumptions that would make the date older than it was.

Since nothing can't be the source of something, that alone disproves evolution.   You have no idea what the first life for was, you can't explain the  origin or matter, energy and especially life coming into being from dead elements.

You can't prove even one thing the TOE preaches.  And it is rude insulting  and self serving to say I have no idea what I am talking about  and offfer no evidence to support your OPINIONS. 

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Actually you are the one who does not understand what you are accepting by faith alone.  You don't understand is that the more complex a life form is, the less  likely it could happen by accident.  That statement reveals you have no understanding of genetics.  Something else you believe, by faith alone, 

 

[Alive]

Let's envision a cataclysmic event for moment. Let's say that where the Mediterranean Sea is now was once a large dry plain. Let us also say that Gibraltar busted open and the Atlantic Ocean began to create a massive waterfall and began to fill the Med Plain. How long would it take before the water found its natural level? Or let's say that the ice sheets melted and a big plug had existed that kept those waters back, such as exists in Iceland. The plug let's go and a massive flood from a local source (the north) and rushed toward the region of Mesopotamia. What would that look like and how would it meet all the criteria in the scriptural record?

[one.opinion]

@omega2xx I simply cannot continue trying to explain science and evidence to you. You have so many incorrect assumptions I despair at the task of trying to correct them all. Fight science all you want, but facts are still facts, and speciation still makes new species.

[Alive]

10 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Totally true. I like this pic from Answers in Genesis:

Yup--I thought it kinda funny that you last posted the picture at the same time that I first mentioned the 'containment' thing.

Like minds, I guess. I had not seen that picture or have I read the stuff at that site. I have a vague recollection of some alternate theories I read years ago.

I have no skin in this game.

:-)

Actually--I am wrong. I did look at that site some years ago. Is that Ken Hamm and the young earth folks?

Edited November 5, 2019 by Alive

[Alive]

11 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I like their videos on YouTube. Very educational since they're also scientists in their own fields of studies. They even explain how it's possible to get millions of light-years of light from a 6-day creation scientifically. It's just cool, but I believe the word of God without man's approvals.

Full disclosure and a repeat.

I just don't know, because I wasn't there. I have looked at evidence from the different natural and historical sciences regarding the young/old earth and the flood and for me its up in the air. I think the scriptural record leaves room in this and other things.

All of these play second and third fiddle to the 'Life' within.

I think we are all going to be quite surprised about a lot of things when we 'know as we have been known'.

Of that much, I am certain.

:-)

Edited November 5, 2019 by Alive

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, Alive said:

Why what?

Why is what you said is inconceivable, inconceivable?

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, Alive said:

Please read the last few of my posts.

All I saw was opinions, no evidence.

[Alive]

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

All I saw was opinions, no evidence.

Yes---you are correct.

[Alive]

11 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Why is what you said is inconceivable, inconceivable?

Ah, yes. I see.