Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

48 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

There is more grandeur in attributing the universe to God than o some accident of nature 

Probably why Darwin assumed that God did it.  

48 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Neither man nor Darwin have a scientific answer to the origin of the universe. 

Most of us figure God did it.   Science can't take you there.   If your faith won't sustain you, science can't help.

49 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

To attribute the origin of all life forms, plant and animal to some unidentified blob is insane. 

Probably why Darwin assumed that God did it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

since you have not explained how salamanders remaining a salamander supports evolution, I am not going to respond until you do.

Already have.  You just don't want to face it:

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution.

And I explained to you that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a  population over time.   So if the next generation of salamanders has a different allele distribution than the old generation, that, by definition, is evolution.

You don't have to respond if you would prefer not to.  We will understand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

It can't b e proved Biblically if there was death before the fall, but it is highly unlikely there was.  God provided them a perfect place and IMO, He meant it as a place for Him to fellowship and provide for the needs, physical and spiritual, forever.  When they sinned, they were driven out of the garden and not allowed back in, and the garden was removed from the earth..

You make a good case. Thank you for respectfully presenting your opinion here without falsely claiming you have the absolute truth. Others here could learn from your example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

There is more grandeur in attributing the universe to God than o some accident of nature

When I consider God creating through evolution, I am impressed with God's creative mind and intricate presence in His creation. In fact, the thought of God creating through such a beautiful process fills me with more wonder and awe than I had as a young earth creationist.

Nineteenth century theologian Charles Kingsley (who also had a great interest in science) had this to say about Darwin's theory is it began to gain acceptance:

Quote

Shall we quarrel with Science if she should show how those words (Darwin’s) are true? What, in one word, should we have to say but this?–We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, He is so much wiser than even that, that He can make all things make themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Probably why Darwin assumed that God did it.  

Assuming God did it  is not honoring Him.  Knowing He did is honoring God.

Most of us figure God did it.   Science can't take you there.   If your faith won't sustain you, science can't help.

When God says, and proves "after their kind" and you reject it, you are calling God a liar, and dishonoring Him

Since I have been debating this subject for over 40 years and nothing ever changes, and minds are never changed. I will only participate in the following 2 subjects:  How is a species, salamanders and gulls, evidence of evolution when their speciation did not cause them to become  something other than a salamander and a gull?

How can a mutation that can only alter the trait of a gene be the mechanism for a change of species?

I will only suggest that you look at what the scientist who work at ICR say on any subject you want to know about. like I have done.  Then a Bible true may set you free. 

Those who only look at one side, are not truly educated.

 

Peace and joy

 

 

Edited by omega2xx
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You make a good case. Thank you for respectfully presenting your opinion here without falsely claiming you have the absolute truth. Others here could learn from your example.

You are welcome.  God's word contains the absolute truth.  We just need to understand it correctly.  That takes prayer, study(not just reading), more prayer and more study as long as we  live.

Love peace and joy

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

When I consider God creating through evolution, I am impressed with God's creative mind and intricate presence in His creation. In fact, the thought of God creating through such a beautiful process fills me with more wonder and awe than I had as a young earth creationist.

Do you really not see that "after their kind" refutes evolution?  Not only refutes  it, it is proven thousands of times every day, can't be falsified  and evolution is not.

Nineteenth century theologian Charles Kingsley (who also had a great interest in science) had this to say about Darwin's theory is it began to gain acceptance:

Men can man some very interesting statements.  Some are valid, some are not.  All statements must have some supporting evidence to be considered worthy of accepting.

 

Since I have been debating this subject for over 40 years and nothing ever changes, and minds are never changed. I will only participate in the following 2 subjects:  How is a species, salamanders and gulls, evidence of evolution when their speciation did not cause them to become  something other than a salamander and a gull?

How can a mutation that can only alter the trait of a gene be the mechanism for a change of species?

I will only suggest that you look at what the scientist who work at ICR say on any subject you want to know about. like I have done.  Then a Bible true may set you free.  Those who only look at one side, are not truly educated.

 

Peace and joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Do you really not see that "after their kind" refutes evolution?  Not only refutes  it, it is proven thousands of times every day, can't be falsified  and evolution is not.

How do you define "after their kind" and why do you define it that way? Does the Bible indicate anywhere that kinds cannot change over time? This is another one of these arguments that relies on human inference rather than what is actually written.

Progeny of course are the same kinds as their parents, but slight differences over long periods of time (and as we have seen, large changes in short periods of time) can change a sub-population into an entirely new species.

There is nothing about the theory of evolution that is falsified by direct observation.

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

How can a mutation that can only alter the trait of a gene be the mechanism for a change of species?

Did you look at the link I sent you? If not, I'll post it here again so hopefully, you will actually look at the evidence.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Please read it. You will see the evidence how a single mutation event, a genome duplication, can lead to the formation of new species (the goatsbeards). You can also find evidence for other speciation events there. Species change a little at first, and this is directly observable. The large-scale changes that differentiate the species frequently take much longer.

37 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Since I have been debating this subject for over 40 years and nothing ever changes, and minds are never changed.

Our abilities to sequence genomes (over the last 20 year) has added a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of evolution. This definitely was a big change.

38 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

How is a species, salamanders and gulls, evidence of evolution when their speciation did not cause them to become  something other than a salamander and a gull?

Show me the study that describes these examples. Then we can discuss them in more detail.

39 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Then a Bible true may set you free.  Those who only look at one side, are not truly educated.

Friend, I've not only looked at the other side, I've been on the other side. I started my education as a firm young earth creationist. The evidence led me to believe that how I once interpreted the Bible was inconsistent with what God has made evident in His creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

When God says, and proves "after their kind" and you reject it, you are calling God a liar, and dishonoring Him

Creationists don't actually reject it; they just add some things to it, to make it more acceptable to them; they usually add "reproduce" to the verse.    And I have to believe that they aren't aware of the insult they give God in this case; most of them would be appalled if some one said that their addition to scripture was "calling God a liar."

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Since I have been debating this subject for over 40 years and nothing ever changes, and minds are never changed. I will only participate in the following 2 subjects:  How is a species, salamanders and gulls, evidence of evolution when their speciation did not cause them to become  something other than a salamander and a gull?

As you recently learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   So evolution is directly observed in those populations as the frequencies change

.   As I showed you, evolution within a species is sometimes called "microevolution" and evolution that produces new species (which even your fellow YE creationists realize happens) is called "macroevolution."

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I will only suggest that you look at what the scientist who work at ICR say on any subject you want to know about.

Gerald Aardsma is a member of the Institute for Creation Research and a fellow therein.    Here's his explanation for why the evidence does not support the YE creationist doctrines:

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago. Since my work is designed to defend the historical truth of the Bible against charges that what it reports as history is in fact fiction, I have not had much cause to talk about the ice-ages so far. (In my understanding of virtual history and the past, one can just accept what the scientists specializing in these fields are telling everyone is their best understanding/reconstruction of these past events. These reconstructions do not attack the historical integrity of the Bible in any way once one understands the concept of virtual history.)

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.

Sincerely,
Dr. Aardsma

Amazing.  But it's the only way possible to reconcile the evidence with YE beliefs.   "Virtual history" is an illusion of a fallen creation, in his religion.   Which makes no sense at all.   Why not just accept the truth as it is?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

When I consider God creating through evolution, I am impressed with God's creative mind and intricate presence in His creation. In fact, the thought of God creating through such a beautiful process fills me with more wonder and awe than I had as a young earth creationist.

Whatever floats your boat.

 I am more impressed with the Bible being accurate and accepting that He has a reason for saying it they way He did for man's benefit.  Plus "after their kind" has been proved everf since Adam and Eve.

Nineteenth century theologian Charles Kingsley (who also had a great interest in science) had this to say about Darwin's theory is it began to gain acceptance:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...