God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dad2]

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It comes down to whether you or Dr. Wise knows more about the fossil record.    You lose.

Not at all. According to Mr wise, was man and animals here in the Cambrian? Mr Wise was just not wise enough yet to realize what the fossil record is all about.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

It comes down to whether you or Dr. Wise knows more about the fossil record.    You lose.

 

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Not at all.

Sorry.   He knows the evidence.   You don't.   You lose.

 

[dad2]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Sorry.   He knows the evidence.   You don't.   You lose.

 

False. He does not know what nature used to exist, and so he cannot interpret the fossils record. Now ask yourself which belief best fits the bible. In all ways, I win.

Edited February 11, 2020 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

Sorry.   He knows the evidence.   You don't.   You lose.

 

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

False.

No, Wise actually knows what the evidence is.    You're just making up a fairy tale to cover up the things you don't know.   The idea that somehow things used to be different won't help you.   If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.    Rock and a hard place.

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

He does not know what nature used to exist, and so he cannot interpret the fossils record.

As you have seen,he cites numerous examples of transitional series that exist in the fossil record.    No point in denying the facts.    Wise doesn't believe that they evolved from each other, but he's honest enough to admit that they are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.    Instead of denying the facts, he suggests that someday, creationists will have rational explanations for them.

You lose again.

Edited February 11, 2020 by The Barbarian

[dad2]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Quote

No, Wise actually knows what the evidence is.  

 

Not like fossils are some big secret. Who doesn't know what the evidence is?

 

Quote

  You're just making up a fairy tale to cover up the things you don't know. 

The absolute demonstrated fact that science does not know what nature on earth used to exist is not made up. Scripture and ancient history are not made up.

The only fairy tales are yours.

Quote

  The idea that somehow things used to be different won't help you. 

  The idea that somehow things used to be the same won't help you unless you have not just an idea but solid evidence.  You do not. You have an opinion you though science agreed with that opposes God's word.

 

Quote

  If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.  

No. It would just mean life had some differences from the modern world in the past. Differences like possibly rapid evolving and adapting. Differences like being able to live many centuries. What do you do with that one, wave it away like you do Eve?

Quote

 As you have seen,he cites numerous examples of transitional series that exist in the fossil record. 

Even if this were the case, we are talking about some species having changed. Big deal. If there were one tiger kind on the ark, obviously a lot of evolving has went on since then. We now have something like thirty species of tigers. Looking at the timing of when the flood happened, this is evidence that rapid evolution used to be normal! Unless you wave away the flood also? If someone did wave away long lifespans, the flood, and Eve as a real woman and Adam as a created man, I would think they might as well throw their bible away.

 

Quote

   Wise doesn't believe that they evolved from each other, but he's honest enough to admit that they are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Who really cares the extent of evolving in the past? God created the kinds and man. All evolving was after the fact. Then there is the issue of how evolving used to happen in the different past. Grabbing some fossils which represent only say, 5% of the spectrum of life that existed in the early record of fossils, and trying to claim they seem similar is fairly inept. Why do they look similar? Did God create similar creatures? Did some much evolved creatures make it into the fossil record, that had some similarity to the kinds which would later also appear in the record? Sorry, but they are using narrow beliefs in viewing the record.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 2/11/2020 at 11:19 AM, dad2 said:

Not like fossils are some big secret. Who doesn't know what the evidence is?

You don't, for example.

On 2/11/2020 at 11:19 AM, dad2 said:

The absolute demonstrated fact that science does not know what nature on earth used to exist is not made up.

Pretty easy to tell.  You see, things leave traces behind that can be analyzed.  And we can check on material of known processes.   If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.  

On 2/11/2020 at 11:19 AM, dad2 said:

No. It would just mean life had some differences from the modern world in the past.

Nope.   If they had different genomes than we have today, that by definition, is evolution.  

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

Pretty easy to tell.  You see, things leave traces behind that can be analyzed. 

If there was no DNA that was the same, you would have no usuable traces. Funny thing is that is exactly what we see. You have no pre KT DNA that is usable. Either you are ignorant or deceptive.

Quote

And we can check on material of known processes.   If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.  

You cannot check on DNA you do not have actually. As for your claim that anything different would mean it had to be due to evolution, that is foolishness. It was not evolution that suddenly cause man to have a lifespan about 1/10 what it was.

 

Quote

Nope.   If they had different genomes than we have today, that by definition, is evolution.  

No it is not. It would be a different nature. In the present nature we do see some evolving, and so yes, genetics are changed, but that has zero to do with Noah's day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Pretty easy to tell.  You see, things leave traces behind that can be analyzed. 

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

You cannot check on DNA

Actually, we can.   For example, we know that Neandertals and Denisovans are subspecies of humans, not different species, because we have found DNA in their fossils.   And we can check on material of known processes.   If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.  

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

You cannot check on DNA you do not have actually.

But we have it.   That's how we know modern humans have large portions of Neandertal DNA.    Surprise.

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

As for your claim that anything different would mean it had to be due to evolution, that is foolishness.

It's evolution by definition.   "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."    You're between a rock and a hard place, here.  If they had different genomes than we have today, that by definition, is evolution.  

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

No it is not.

As you now realize, it is.    Did you really not know what "evolution" means, after all this time?

13 hours ago, dad2 said:

In the present nature we do see some evolving, and so yes, genetics are changed, but that has zero to do with Noah's day.

As you now realize, we have human DNA from long before Noah.   And it confirms human evolution.

No point in denying the fact.

 

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

Pretty easy to tell.  You see, things leave traces behind that can be analyzed. 

Actually, we can.   For example, we know that Neandertals and Denisovans are subspecies of humans, not different species, because we have found DNA in their fossils.   And we can check on material of known processes.   If genomes were different for early man, that would just prove that humans evolved.  

Pretty easy to refute you completely. Those are post flood man, so there is no connection to people in the former nature at all.

 

Quote

But we have it.   That's how we know modern humans have large portions of Neandertal DNA.    Surprise.

As mentioned already, those post flood man remains are not relevant to the former nature, period.

Quote

It's evolution by definition.   "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."    You're between a rock and a hard place, here.  If they had different genomes than we have today, that by definition, is evolution.  

It is not evolution of former nature DNA to modern DNA. Irrelevant.

 

Quote

As you now realize, it is.    Did you really not know what "evolution" means, after all this time?

There was lots of evolving in the former nature. Ho hum. In fact it happened so fast that it is hardly comparable to modern slow evolving. Not only fast, but possibly living animals evolved rather than just the offspring.

Quote

As you now realize, we have human DNA from long before Noah.   And it confirms human evolution.

As you should realize by now, you have no usable DNA from before the KT period or even close to that time. So any evolving has zero to do with 'evolution of man'. Yes man undergoes some adapting and evolving, but that has nothing to do with the 'evolution of man' since we are a created kind.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, dad2 said:

Pretty easy to refute you completely. Those are post flood man, so there is no connection to people in the former nature at all.

Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals.

10 hours ago, dad2 said:

It is not evolution of former nature DNA to modern DNA. Irrelevant.

There's really no point in denying the fact.   If you argue that Neandertals weren't humans, it just gets harder for you.   If you argue that they were, then by definition, we've evolved from that time, since our genome is significantly different today.

And as you learned, a change in allele frequencies over time is what evolution is.