Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • 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

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

So that explains things.   Keep in mind, Wise and Wood don't accept evolution, either.   They're just honest enough to admit that there lots of very good evidence for it.

Dr. Wise writes:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and  Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

There's a lot more there.   Go and learn.

Dr. Wood:

Quite a while back, Steve Matheson posted an interesting item and challenge on his blog about the Notch protein. His post gives a lot of detail on Notch itself, so I won't cover it again here but instead just rehash the basics. There's a protein called Notch that is used in cell-cell signalling during embryonic development. It's found in flies, jellyfish, sea urchins, humans, frogs, and many other critters. Steve asks the important question, "Why does every animal use Notch?" He gives three options: (1) It's the only functional option, (2) It's historical contingency, (3) It's the personal preference of a designer. He rules out (1), since Notch's function is so simple it could be done by many different proteins. It's like a key & lock; no need to use the same key in every lock. Option (3) would require some knowledge of the designer and the designer's preferences, which ID is notoriously unwilling to hypothesize on. Steve prefers option (2): "The earliest animals settled on this choice, and their descendants have used it ever since."

To illustrate how this works, I've created a sequence alignment of some Notch proteins (from mouse, human, frog (Xenopus), fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster laevis), sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), and the jellyfish-like hydra (Hydra vulgaris). In the alignment, different amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are represented as letters of the alphabet. Looking at the mouse and human sequences at the top, you can see that they are identical for this segment. That means that for this segment of Notch, mouse and humans really do have "the same" Notch.

Comparing the frog Notch to the human/mouse Notch, we find a few differences. In the first position of the alignment, the frog has a serine where the mammals have a proline. There are two other differences (at positions 21 and 48 of the alignment), indicating that the frog's Notch is only 94% identical to the mammalian Notch (47/50 = 94% identical). The fly's Notch is even less similar over this segment (42/50 = 84% identical). Most dissimilar are the sea urchin and hydra sequences, at 60% and 44% identical respectively for the illustrated segment.

You'll notice looking at those numbers that they seem to form a kind of pattern. Most simiar to humans is the mouse (a mammal), then the frog (a fellow vertebrate), and then the invertebrate animals. The similarity in Notch is roughly the same similarity that you would see at the anatomical level. In this set of organisms, humans are most similar to mice, then to other vertebrates like frogs, then to invertebrates.
...
Now, here's the kick: There's no functional reason for Notch to show this kind of similarity. As Steve points out, it's just a lock-and-key mechanism role that it's performing. All animals could truly have identical Notch proteins, and they would work fine. Or animals could have Notch proteins that have a random bunch of differences. They would still work fine. Instead, what we find is a set of proteins that have a very particular pattern of similarities, a pattern that is very easy to explain if the Notch proteins evolved like this:(see diagram)

In this diagram, the evolution of Notch begins on the left of the diagram. As the species evolve, different copies of Notch in different species (different branches of the tree) accumulate different mutations. The later that species diverge, the less time there is for mutations to accumulate. In the present, creatures that diverged recently have Notch proteins that are very similar, and creatures that diverged in the more distant past will have Notch proteins that are less similar.
...
How can a creationist explain this? At present, not very easily. There have been some attempts at refuting these patterns, but they are not very convincing. Looking back at Steve's explanatory options, I reject the notion of functional requirement and historic contingency, so that leaves the preference of a designer. The question is why? For what purpose did God arrange Notch proteins in that particular pattern?
...

I don't want to discredit these explanations of protein homology and similarity, since I think they're all reasonable. But overall, when the exceptions become the rule, maybe we should be rethinking the rule itself? Maybe the fact that proteins occur in multiple copies in the same organism or don't form a very evolutionary pattern is telling us something about what these similarities mean. Maybe the key to understanding protein homology is not the fact that a select few sequences can make evolutionary trees. Maybe God's trying to tell us something in these similarities?

What we creationists need now are fewer people taking potshots at the homology argument and more people working to figure out what homology actually means. 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/notch-revisited.html

notchtree.jpg

You need a course  that explains the difference  between rhetoric and facts.

Love, peace, joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  177
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/10/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

And that hold for those who accept evolution as well.   We should never say that one has to accept evolution to be a Christian.

 

I disagree because you are advocating ignoring the evidence and established facts. I prefer to live my life as an honest man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:
1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

My evidence is because I Know Him, and He is the Word of God that spoke these things into existence.

So whatever is right in your sight, rather than God's word.   But no evidence to support it.  

The difference between a Deist, and a theist is that the theist believes in the divine revelation of God, in that God is capable in a personal way of acting in our lives and we know him relationally for having done so in the course of our lives. A Deist believes in God as an original force in the creation process but he does not interfere with the natural evolution of his creation, therefore you will never know Him on a personal level. You acknowledge Him, yet you do Know Him.

With faith comes sight, But sight is never the basis of faith, for that which is seen is not believed on by faith. So I can argue with an atheist, and bring them to the rational understanding that there is a God, But I have merely created a Deist. Until they by faith receive Jesus as the revelation of God amongst his creation (God incarnate) by faith They cannot come to know him personally as their Lord and Savior. Christianity is a relationship, not a religion, or a mental acknowledgment of God, James 2:19 which I quoted earlier states that even the devils in hell acknowledge God, and tremble.... That being said, for many in the modern world this deism is merely a step on the road to theism, but for others they get stuck there in that step, worshipping their mind as their idol. Evolution mixed with this deism is just another excuse not to grow into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and becoming a New creation in Christ Jesus Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Cor. 5:17)

You see, God acted again upon his creation supernaturally by sending his Son to dies on the cross for fallen mankind. But instead of this supernatural action being forced upon the creation he offers it as a free gift to those who will receive Him, when they do they became a new creature, Born again of the Spirit. A deist denies this, and they only acknowledge God with their mind, and do not believe with their heart. The evidence comes when we Receive Him, and that is what you are missing.

16 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

A literal six days has never been the orthodox understanding; in fact, orthodoxy doesn't demand either: literal and non-literal interpretations are within orthodoxy. 

This is a blatant false statement (revisionist history) on your part. Those who know Him, and His omnipotence know he can create in six days, those who do not know him doubt. That is all your deism amounts to is partial unbelief. You are like Nicodemus in the following passage.  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3:3-12)

My Hope and prayer is that you will see now what is missing in your Life.  

Edited by dhchristian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

@The Barbarian Here is a writing that explains this By A.W. Tozer.

CHAPTER 1: MAN - THE DWELLING PLACE OF GOD
Deep inside every man there is a private sanctum where dwells the mysterious essence of his being. This far-in reality is that in the man which is what it is of itself without reference to any other part of the man’s complex nature. It is the man’s “I Am,” a gift from the I AM who created him.
The I AM which is God is underived and self-existent; the “I Am” which is man is derived from God and dependent every moment upon His creative fiat for its continued existence. One is the Creator, high over all, ancient of days, dwelling in light unapproachable. The other is a creature and, though privileged beyond all others, is still but a creature, a pensioner on God’s bounty and a suppliant before His throne.
The deep-in human entity of which we speak is called in the Scriptures the spirit of man. “For what man knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11). As God’s self-knowledge lies in the eternal Spirit, so man’s self-knowledge is by his own spirit, and his knowledge of God is by the direct impression of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man.
The importance of all this can not be overestimated as we think and study and pray. It reveals the essential spirituality of mankind. It denies that man is a creature having a spirit and declares that he is a spirit having a body. That which makes him a human being is not his body but his spirit, in which the image of God originally lay.
One of the most liberating declarations in the New Testament is this: “The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). Here the nature of worship is shown to be wholly spiritual. True religion is removed from diet and days, from garments and ceremonies, and placed where it belongs - in the union of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God.
From man’s standpoint the most tragic loss suffered in the Fall was the vacating of this inner sanctum by the Spirit of God. At the far-in hidden centre of man’s being is a bush fitted to be the dwelling place of the Triune God. There God planned to rest and glow with moral and spiritual fire. Man by his sin forfeited this indescribably wonderful privilege and must now dwell there alone. For so intimately private is the place that no creature can intrude; no one can enter but Christ; and He will enter only by the invitation of faith. “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20).
By the mysterious operation of the Spirit in the new birth, that which is called by Peter “the divine nature” enters the deep-in core of the believer’s heart and establishes residence there. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” for “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Romans 8:9, 16). Such a one is a true Christian, and only such. Baptism, confirmation, the receiving of the sacraments, church membership - these mean nothing unless the supreme act of God in regeneration also takes place. Religious externals may have a
5
meaning for the God-inhabited soul; for any others they are not only useless but may actually become snares, deceiving them into a false and perilous sense of security.

“Keep thy heart with all diligence” is more than a wise saying; it is a solemn charge laid upon us by the One who cares most about us. To it we should give the most careful heed lest at any time we should let it slip.

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

32 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. (Mark 13:19)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)

While these verses affirm creation (just as everyone involved in this conversation does), they do not affirm a 144-hour creation period. 

 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Paul speaks of the formation of Eve from the Rib of Adam as a doctrinal statement.... For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1 tim. 2:13) Formed being the Word Plaso which is to be formed from clay, a term used in pottery. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man

There are many individuals (I am one of them) that accept both evolution and the existence of Adam and Eve. This verse still does not affirm a 144-hour creation period.

 

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, one.opinion said:

While these verses affirm creation (just as everyone involved in this conversation does), they do not affirm a 144-hour creation period. 

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

There are many individuals (I am one of them) that accept both evolution and the existence of Adam and Eve. This verse still does not affirm a 144-hour creation period.

At the time and culture these words were written in there was only the understanding of the six day creation, so, yes these verses affirm the six day creation. This is just good hermeneutics. You cannot understand a literary work rightly if you do not understand when, and where and to whom it was written. The culture of Jesus Day, in the Nation of Israel held the Jewish account of Genesis as factual, therefore any mention of creation by Jesus and the apostles was affirming the six day creation as recorded in Genesis. The Apostle John at the outset of His Gospel alludes to the very book of Genesis starting it off In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

This is the Most affirming of the six day creation in that it clearly states that Jesus, The Logos(Word) was and Is and is to come, the Creator of all things.

So Clearly, you are wrong, but will probably never admit it.... 

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

31 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

At the time and culture these words were written in there was only the understanding of the six day creation, so, yes these verses affirm the six day creation.

It should be obvious that the passages you quoted require your own (fallible) interpretation to be added to what is actually written.

33 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

This is just good hermeneutics.

Of course you assume that the hermeneutics are good - they are yours.

34 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

Absolutely, I agree with this 100%.

34 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

This is the Most affirming of the six day creation

Absolutely not. The passage does not in any way require that creation occurred in 144 hours.

36 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So Clearly, you are wrong, but will probably never admit it....

No, what is clear is that you are adding your own opinion to what is actually recorded in the Bible. Why should I admit otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, one.opinion said:

It should be obvious that the passages you quoted require your own (fallible) interpretation to be added to what is actually written.

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

Of course you assume that the hermeneutics are good - they are yours.

The Place and setting and hermeneutics are facts, not my interpretation, This is a mighty Post modern attitude on your part.

Israel, in the first century believed in the six day genesis account, and You are simply making excuses now to not admit you are wrong. It is not my opinion, it is historical FACT. As much as you want you cannot rewrite that history.  

Just now, one.opinion said:

No, what is clear is that you are adding your own opinion to what is actually recorded in the Bible. Why should I admit otherwise?

Like I said, Too proud to admit to making a mistake.... I must be a prophet or something :sarc:Sarcasm intended. BTW,It is not my opinion,it is the Testimony of Jesus and the apostles which you reject.

Edited by dhchristian
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

5 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Like I said, Too proud to admit to making a mistake.... I must be a prophet or something :sarc:Sarcasm intended.

It does not surprise me in the least that you consider yourself a prophet.

To you, "What the Bible actually says" + "What I think" = "What the Bible REALLY says".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, one.opinion said:

It does not surprise me in the least that you consider yourself a prophet.

To you, "What the Bible actually says" + "What I think" = "What the Bible REALLY says".

The Jewish people believed the six day creation in genesis, That is a FACT. You cannot deny facts, they stand alone without proof. For example 80% of rapists come from fatherless homes... this is a FACT, You may not like this fact (if you are a feminist, for example) but it is a fact. You are denying a fact, because you do not want to admit your wrong.

BTW The prophet thing was Sarcasm, hence the Emoji and the words sarcasm intended. Looks like I caught you with your hand in the cookie jar and now your making excuses. 

2032657984_coast_news_cookie_jar1.jpg.617dd81091439a7f25ad5ccd2df54fb2.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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