God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Steve_S]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, I say that most individuals in the scientific community are not anti-Christian. We are all anti-God prior to our acceptance of His atonement and new life. The scientific community is not any more (or any less) anti-God than a Tuesday night bowling league.

I would not disagree regarding the bowling league either, of course. Regarding evolution, though, I would say that atheistic Tuesday night bowlers are not the ones making the decisions on what the children of Christians are going to be taught in schools and universities.

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is often erroneously believed and/or implied that the scientific community accepts evolution because it is anti-Christian. In my experience, this has not been the case.

I suppose my first question is what, specifically, constitutes the scientific community in this context? What sciences specifically? What level of education? Does this just involve researchers or also educators that rarely or never participate in research? Does this involve people only with graduate degrees? Does this involve any, some, or all MDs or DOs?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

It wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You just make up stuff to try make it fit your unscientific  BELIEF system.  "Bang" means an explosion.  If you want to start a new theory, make it the BE.

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the steady state theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.^[10] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence for an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the hot Big Bang model,^[11] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. ... English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.

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

Remember when I told you that not knowing what you're talking about can hurt you?    This is another example.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You continue to make up stuff and continue to not provide any evidence.  The universe did not start out chaotic.  

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

God says you're wrong. 

This is why Hoyle was unhappy about it.   A Christian proposed the theory, which is consistent with Christian belief.   And you sided with the atheist.    Not only do you not understand  science, you don't understand the Bible.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You don't seem to understand that Atheist can become well qualified in science 

Of course they can.   Dawkins is a fine scientist and atheist like Hoyle.   But there were times when their atheism led them in the wrong direction.   Hoyle opposed the Big Bang because it hinted at a Creator consistent with the Christian God.   Dawkins has similar miscues.    But it really has nothing to do with evolution, which you have now learned, is being directly observed.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

The only think I have learned from you is that you can't prove even one thing the TOE preaches.

That's a testable belief.  Which of the four premises of Darwinian theory do you think are false?    I'm pretty sure you won't respond, but people will notice if you don't.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Since you can't prove anything, you have to resort to making up things you hope will support you faith in Darwin, who wasn't even a scientists.

As you see here, I've provided you all sorts of evidence to back up what I'm telling you.   And since Darwin was elected to the Royal Society, the most important scientific society in Britain, it's foolish to deny his scientific credentials.   If he had not discovered the mechanism of evolution, he would still be famous for his work that showed cirripeds to be arthropods, and for his work showing how pacific atolls are formed.

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I don’t understand your reasoning. Biologically, man is an ape, but we are much more than our biology. Our “image of God” is obviously not based on biology.

my reasoning is so simple even a cave man can understand it.  One with a PhD in  biology should not only understand it, they should agree with it.  Saying man is an ape will be disproved by DNA. and the offspring each produces.  Man can speak, read, write, reason, walk upright etc.  Apes CAN'T!  Trying to make man an ape is an arbitrary, man-made classification necessary to keep the fraud of evolution from being exposed.  That same is true of whale evolution.  There is no scientific way to show how the leg of a land animal became the fin  of a sea animal.  Time will not, can not change proven genetics truths. Image is not based on biology, but likeness is.  God is Spirit and is not visible.  When He appears as a man(theophany) He   does not look like an ape.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If you are not afraid the truth  about the fossil record will destroy your fantasy, goggle "problems with the fossil record" and see what even good evolutionists say.

You still haven't explained  how salamanders remaining salamanders in what  is called speciation, support evolution.  You haven't because you can't.

Even your fellow creationists have admitted that the many fossil transitionals are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

You're aware of Dr. Wise, but there are others...

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood:

September 30, 2009

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

Gerald Aardsma has a unique and creative way to avoid the evidence.   He thinks we're in a sort of story made up by God and the world shows a virtual history which is another version of the story:

Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.” But not in real history. Read his explanation of virtual history below and see if you are convinced:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

 

[one.opinion]

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

my reasoning is so simple even a cave man can understand it.

Denisovan or Neanderthal? 

My point is this - "ape" is an artificial classification and biologically, humans share a tremendous amount, including DNA with them. What makes us in the image of God is not our biology. God imbued humanity with intangible characteristics, including a spirit, that I believe makes us in His image.

[omega2xx]

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

It wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion.

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the steady state theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.^[10] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence for an expanding universe. In 1964, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the hot Big Bang model,^[11] since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. ... English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.

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

Remember when I told you that not knowing what you're talking about can hurt you?    This is another example.<"

Not one thought in the above proves anything.  You don't even understand what constitutes evidence. Do you really not understand that what people think and say IS NOT EVIDENCE?  The BB is not universally accepted even by evolutionists. That is  just another thing you have to make up to try and support your fairy tale.

"Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

God says you're wrong. "

God says you also don't understand the Bible. void, empty and darkness do not represent chaos.  You also don't understand that saying the universe started in chaos, supports creation, not evolution.  Order can become chaos, but order can can't come from chaos. 

"This is why Hoyle was unhappy about it.   A Christian proposed the theory, which is consistent with Christian belief.   And you sided with the atheist.    Not only do you not understand  science, you don't understand the Bible."

The THEORY  is not consistent with Christisn beliefs, more accurately it is not consistent with the Bible, and you can't show any Scripure that supports that view.

 

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"Of course they can.   Dawkins is a fine scientist and atheist like Hoyle.   But there were times when their atheism led them in the wrong direction.   Hoyle opposed the Big Bang because it hinted at a Creator consistent with the Christian God.   Dawkins has similar miscues.    But it really has nothing to do with evolution, which you have now learned, is being directly observed."

You still d not understand that saying something is not evidence.  You can't give me even one example of where evolution has been observe.  Just another something you have to invent, and can't support.  You still have not explained why salamanders remaining salamanders is evidence of evolution.  Do you really not understand that evolution preaches a change of species.

"That's a testable belief.  Which of the four premises of Darwinian theory do you think are false?    I'm pretty sure you won't respond, but people will notice if you don't."

If is testable, post where it has been tested and the results.  I am positive you will not respond, but people will notice if you don't, and I will be more than happy to remind them and you.

'As you see here, I've provided you all sorts of evidence to back up what I'm telling you."

All you have done is reinforce, you don't have a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence.

  " And since Darwin was elected to the Royal Society, the most important scientific society in Britain, it's foolish to deny his scientific credentials. "

If he doesn't have them, and he doesn't, is is foolish to put your faith in him.  Especially since nothing he said has ever been scientifically proved.

"  If he had not discovered the mechanism of evolution, he would still be famous for his work that showed cirripeds to be arthropods, and for his work showing how pacific atolls are formed."

YAWN

 

 

[omega2xx]

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Even your fellow creationists have admitted that the many fossil transitionals are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

You're aware of Dr. Wise, but there are others...

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood:

September 30, 2009

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

Gerald Aardsma has a unique and creative way to avoid the evidence.   He thinks we're in a sort of story made up by God and the world shows a virtual history which is another version of the story:

Young-cosmos creationist, Aardsma (Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto) believes that his “virtual history” hypothesis is less problematic than the usual creationist excuse of “creation with apparent age.” Aardsma even admits at one point below that “I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flora and fauna)—-again, in virtual history.” But not in real history. Read his explanation of virtual history below and see if you are convinced:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

Creation students listen to me very carefully.  Barbarian does not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.  He thinks if he believe it, it  is evidence.  He believes if some evolution says something it is evidence.

When it comes to proving something, faith is not enough.  The only way something can be proved is with verifiable FACTS, and evolution is sadly wanting in that area.

"After their kind" refutes evolution and it has been proved thousands of times since time began, and  it can't be falsified.

 

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

Regarding evolution, though, I would say that atheistic Tuesday night bowlers are not the ones making the decisions on what the children of Christians are going to be taught in schools and universities.

Interesting point and maybe a good subject for another thread. One quick comment - I believe schools and universities should limit curricula to what can be scientifically investigated, but should be much more clear about the inability of science to answer important questions in other areas, such as theology or philosophy.

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

I suppose my first question is what, specifically, constitutes the scientific community in this context? What sciences specifically? What level of education? Does this just involve researchers or also educators that rarely or never participate in research? Does this involve people only with graduate degrees? Does this involve any, some, or all MDs or DOs?

Yes, "scientific community" is a difficult thing to define. I guess since I am making the claim that the "scientific community" is not (as a whole) antagonistic to Christianity, I would include everyone that uses science professionally - researchers, educators, doctors and other health care workers, science journalists, and probably quite a few others I am missing. My personal, direct observations have been with researchers and educators.

[The Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Creation students listen to me very carefully.  Barbarian does not understand what constitutes evidence.

Evidence is demonstrable fact.   So the series of transitionals cited by creationists like Scott Wood and Kurt Wise are evidence.    They are facts, which can be examined.   These creationists honestly admit the facts; they just put more confidence in their particular interpretation of scripture.

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

When it comes to proving something, faith is not enough.

When it comes to proving God, faith is sufficient.   Everything else needs evidence.    As I said, you don't understand either very well.

And since God uses evolution to produce new kinds of organisms, that is entirely consistent with His word in Genesis.    As you learned, YE creationists allow for a limited amount of common descent, permitting new species, genera, and families, occasionally new orders.

Would you like me to show you that, again?

[omega2xx]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Denisovan or Neanderthal? 

Both.

"My point is this - "ape" is an artificial classification and biologically, humans share a tremendous amount, including DNA with them."

Humans also share DNA with bananas, does that make us a banana?  DNA does not join, it separates.  That is why it can be used in trials to identify or not identify the guilty party.

"What makes us in the image of God is not our biology. God imbued humanity with intangible characteristics, including a spirit, that I believe makes us in His image."

That is true for image, but not for likeness.  man shares very little "likeness" with what is actually an ape.  Also animal do not have a spirit, or at least the Bible does not say God breathed into them the breath of life and then man became a living soul.  There  that animals have either a spirit  or a soul. is no Biblical indication that animals have either a spirit or a soul.  That alone is enough to convince me that man and apes are not the same.