God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The troll exposing his true political agenda!

I'm sad I couldn't find a quintuple. But I'm even more sad that you know you lied, but think addressing my "political agenda" is more important.

Lying to support your view of the Bible is not a good way to convince me that I should think like you.

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

I'm sad I couldn't find a quintuple. But I'm even more sad that you know you lied, but think addressing my "political agenda" is more important.

Lying to support your view of the Bible is not a good way to convince me that I should think like you.

How much are they payin ya? 

I mean you sure spend a lot of time on this site lurking..... Don't you have some classes to prepare for? or Teach for that matter? Or some research project to work on? Instead your here... all the time. within seconds sometimes responding to comments. 

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Don't you have some classes to prepare for? or Teach for that matter? Or some research project to work on?

Yeah, I graded exams for a couple of hours earlier today. I don’t teach on Saturdays. I do most of my research work during the week, too. Also, I teach at a Christian university, so you are way off base, as usual.

What does any of this have to do with your disregard for a basic Christian principle like honesty? You know one of the Ten Commandments is related to this, right?

[dhchristian]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yeah, I graded exams for a couple of hours earlier today. I don’t teach on Saturdays. I do most of my research work during the week, too. Also, I teach at a Christian university, so you are way off base, as usual.

Hence the Troll #1. "The Purist" Your digging your own grave.  There are 2 appeals at work here, the appeal to authority (scholarship) and the appeal to purity (coming off as the benevolent troll). Your response was expected, and proof of your guile.  

What is it that the trolls hate the most? Light. Who did Jesus say he was? The Light of the World. This is why leftist trolls have to oppose the truth of the Word of God. This has nothing to do with me here, and everything to do with you. You just exposed your political agenda, and why you are trolling this site. You can try and divert this all you want to me, but that is only making my case stronger that you are a troll. There is only one response that will prove you are not a troll.... how's that for a riddle Mr. troll? Now there may be some that are fooled by your trolling still, but others see the light shining in the darkness of your lair, and the stench is filling their nostrils. Prove me wrong. 

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Radiometric dating is very reliable evidence. You just reject it for reasons that you cannot articulate.

False. The reasons it loses all reliability when we get many thousands of years into the past is because the method is based on the present nature only and how it now works. Unless there were this nature in place the ratios simply lose the meaning science assumed. The only question becomes was nature the same or not? The answer is science does not know. I kid you not.

 

Quote

Look at the record here. I have shown a bit of evidence.

The truth is you have not and cannot show evidence. All you do is use your belief and plaster it all over evidence! Period.

 

Quote

Yes. You can look at the shape of the crater. It caves inward. That means that the impact was from above. Come on, this is not a difficult concept. It is very easy for forensic scientists to look a bullet impact on a body and determine the bullet flight. Looking at a meteor impact is similar.

Seriously? Your support for an impact from above is the shape of the crater?

https://s3-us-east-2.amazonaws.com/orbitz-media/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/16134626/orbitz-yucatan-Chicxulub-crater-ken-thomas.jpg

If an impact from below happened as a fountain of the deep erupted, I do not see any reason to expect anything other than what we see.

" But Gulick points out that the tsunami deposits and impact breccia found between 620 and 670 meters all came after the impact itself, .."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/updated-drilling-dinosaur-killing-impact-crater-explains-buried-circular-hills

It seems to be a matter of how we interpret things like a tsunami of water after the impact!

\But as I have said, it doesn't matter to me. The event happened in the former nature, so expectations of what would occur from an asteroid impact would need to be changed also.

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

There is no evidence of an apocalyptic meteor strike in the last 6000 actual years.

What evidence tells us that the flood water came from the planet core, which is where iridium would be located on the planet?

Man has never been more than several miles down anyhow so who know what we would expect from an event in the former nature that brought a world of water upwards? Who knows how deep the water was? Who knows that science is correct about what is actually down there and at what depth? Who knows how much of the iridium came from space?

 

Quote

So your conjecture is that the iridium was all floating on top of the flood water, and settled into a nice layer across the planet?

No. Who says iridium floats on top of water? The iridium is found in clay, so that suggests water was involved.

 

Quote

So thousands of birds species were all different kinds (and received their own, separate invitation), but dinos were a single bird-kind? Explain the reasoning here.

God called the kinds to the ark. This is news? If dinosaurs were not created original kinds, why would they be called?

 

Quote

Try reading the article. They clearly show how three independent dating methods all verify one another.

False. Name one method that does not assume a same state past? Ha.

Quote

 If there is no evidence that the natural world operated completely differently in the past, then the logical conclusion is that what we see now is consistent with the past.

Scripture and ancient history are evidence. Science has none either way. Why would we disbelieve the ancient record for no reason? You might as well deny last week. It makes no sense to assume that things must have worked the same without any evidence to do so, and in opposition to actual records of the past!

 

Quote

Ok good, glad you aren't upset. You are just claiming destruction and sweat-less victory as though there was some sort of competition going on.

There is, of course, God told us about the past and the truth of creation. Demon influenced so called science has deceived people and made up stories abut origins that are in direct opposition to God.

Quote

 I do not reject God, I am His child through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. I also do not reject the Bible. There is a difference between rejecting a particular interpretation of the Bible and rejecting the actual Bible.

All through the bible creation is spoken about, and no interpretation is needed, or hinted at whatsoever. Only belief. Jesus is creator.

 

Quote

You obviously don't believe the conclusions that scientists believe. That's fine. Pretending evidence doesn't exist is silly, though.

You obviously believe the conclusions that scientists believe over God. That's fine. Pretending evidence exists is silly, though. There is only belief that is imposed and projected and foisted onto evidence. I kid you not.

Quote

 

Look at what YEC scientist Todd Wood says about evolution:

The PhD Creationist admits "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

 

I agree. Of course God made us with the ability to adapt and evolve. There is absolutely zero evidence for the theory of evolution though!

 

[dad2]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The troll exposing his true political agenda!

When people badmouth conservative agenda ( I am not a conservative politically in many ways such as war) I would ask them two questions to see what the real heart of their problem is. One: Do you agree with killing babies. Two: Do you reject the man woman relationship and natural sex God instituted?

Edited February 9, 2020 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

We can analyze genes and genomes today and get a pretty good idea of how genetics works. We can look at DNA samples that are dated to over 100,000 years old and see that genetics worked the same at that time. There is zero evidence supporting the idea that genetics worked differently at some unknown point in the past, particularly within the last 6000 years. You seem pretty upset that I've pointed this out to you, but it might be time to honestly consider your assumptions.

This is true.  And it's weird that a creationist can simultaneously believe that coelacanths exist, completely unchanged from hundreds of millions of years ago, and also believe that genetics didn't work the same way back then.

Not to mention the fact that similarities in DNA precisely fit evolutionary phylogenies.   That's pretty good evidence for common descent, but it's also really good evidence that the way genes work hasn't changed very much.   It would be unbelievably weird if the genetics of every line of organisms evolved precisely to make it look as though nothing much had changed in the way genes work.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

I agree. Of course God made us with the ability to adapt and evolve. There is absolutely zero evidence for the theory of evolution though!

That's what the theory of evolution is.    Darwin's big discovery was that natural selection makes things evolve to become more fit.    You've surrendered on every point but the label.

 

 

 

[dhchristian]

7 hours ago, dad2 said:

When people badmouth conservative agenda ( I am not a conservative politically in many ways such as war) I would ask them two questions to see what the real heart of their problem is. One: Do you agree with killing babies. Two: Do you reject the man woman relationship and natural sex God instituted?

Both of those issues stem from the issue of denying God's Special Creation of Mankind.  

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

That's what the theory of evolution is. 

Not true at all. The TOE is about how we share relatives with flatworms and that man is a product of evolution rather than a creation of God directly.
 

Quote

Darwin's big discovery was that natural selection makes things evolve to become more fit.    You've surrendered on every point but the label.

 

It does not matter what happens now. We are long after the time of creation. If nature now works a certain way, great. That does not mean our origins were determined by that. Adam had the ability to evolve as did all creatures. That does not mean we came to be because of evolution.

Cart, meet horse.