God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The facts presented in that post was from one of your fellow creationists.   I thought you knew.    Notice that Dr. Wood carefully distinguished between the facts (evidence) and the conclusions made from those facts (common descent).    He acknowledges that the facts are consistent with common descent, but supposes that there is another reasonable way to interpret them that has not yet been discovered.   

Notice that he points out the futility of arguing against the facts, or even (until a good alternative is presented) against the conclusions, which he recognizes as logical, even as he disagrees with them.

An honest creationist, being honest with himself.  

Your problem, at least one of them, is putting all your eggs in one basket.  Of course there are some Christians who believe in evolution.  There are some people who do not believe we landed on the moon.  Believing something, no matter how hard, does not make it true. There are many more Christians scientist who reject evolution and they give scientific reasons for rejecting it.

Science proves/disproves man's theories.  Nothing in the TOE has eve been proved  That is why I say to you, you  need to learn to distinguish between facts and opinion.

You say  Dr Wood acknowledges that the facts are consistent with common descent..  You can end this discussion and be the evo hero by posting the facts he said exist.  One main problem for common descent is that you have no idea what the first life form was and it is even worse trying to show, scientifically of course, what it evolved into.

A single cell could not possibly have all of the genes necessary to give the traits of several million species the traits they have now.  You have an even harder problem to solve.  Did plants produce animal life or did animal life produce plant  life?  "Either scenario  is scientifically impossible.

An honest evolutionist , needs to be honest with himself.

Love, peace,  joy

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

A single cell could not possibly have all of the genes necessary to give the traits of several million species the traits they have now. 

Yes, it is obvious that a single celled organism does not have the same gene capacity as an organism with a larger genome. However, duplications of DNA segments are common events. Genome analysis has shown that duplication and divergence is a common feature in genome change over time. First, a DNA region containing a gene is duplicated, giving two copies of the same gene. Then, the two versions of the gene can diversify in DNA sequence because the selection pressure does not fall on a single version of a particular gene.

We know that gene duplications take place. A good example of this is the OPN1MW gene that is responsible for color vision in the green wavelength range. While many individuals have a single copy of this gene, many people have 2 or even 3 copies of this particular gene.

The divergence of genes is extrapolated from evidence, rather than directly observed, but the genomic evidence is very strong for this phenomenon, as well.

[The Barbarian]

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Your problem, at least one of them, is putting all your eggs in one basket. 

One of the advantages of being consistent in one's story, is one doesn't need a great memory.    The truth doesn't change with one's personal outlook.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Of course there are some Christians who believe in evolution. 

Most of us, in fact.  

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Notice that Dr. Wood carefully distinguished between the facts (evidence) and the conclusions made from those facts (common descent). 

Yes.   That's what I showed you before.   Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise admit that the evidence shows common descent.   They are honest enough to say that the evidence shows one thing and their interpretations of the Bible say another.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

There are some people who do not believe we landed on the moon.

Which is no worse than believing the Earth is flat or that there is no evolution.    They just have different presuppositions than you do.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Science proves/disproves man's theories.  

No, that's wrong.   Science is inductive, inferring the rules by observing the particulars.   Epistemologically, science never "proves" anything.    It merely collects enough evidence to make the conclusion very, very certain.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Nothing in the TOE has eve been proved 

All four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified.  Evolution, as you learned, is being directly observed.   Most creationists now admit the fact of speciation, and allow common descent to the level of new species, genera, families, and sometimes orders.   Would you like me to show you, again?

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You can end this discussion and be the evo hero by posting the facts he said exist. 

Let's take a look...

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.

So Wood says there's gobs and gobs of evidence for evolution.    Wise cites numerous examples.    Would you like to see that?   These are honest creationists who acknowledge the facts.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

One main problem for common descent is that you have no idea what the first life form was and it is even worse trying to show, scientifically of course, what it evolved into.

It was a unicellular prokaryote.   And and over time, prokaryotes evolved, likely by endosymbiosis, into eukaryotes.   Do we have evidence for endosymbiotic evolution?   We have an observed example.   Would you like to learn about that?

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

A single cell could not possibly have all of the genes necessary to give the traits of several million species the traits they have now.

Fortunately, we now know that mutation can duplicate and then alter genes to make new ones.   Eukaryotes can also make new genes from non-coding DNA.   So that's no problem for the theory, either.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You have an even harder problem to solve.  Did plants produce animal life or did animal life produce plant  life?  

No, and no.   The basal eukaryote was neither a plant nor an animal.   Some protist can photosynthesize as well as move about; others are sessile and photosynthesize.   Others are sessile and don't photosynthesize.   Plants and animals diverged from a eukaryote that was neither plant nor animal.

Would you like to see the evidence for that?

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

An honest evolutionist , needs to be honest with himself.

It's pretty easy to do that, when (as your fellow creationists admit) the facts are on the evolutionist side.   It takes a considerable amount of honesty for a creationist to admit it, however.   Not all of them are up to it, but some of them are.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by The Barbarian

[dhchristian]

25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree, the natural world does not hold the same weight as scripture. But when what God has made evident in the natural world contradicts one interpretation of the Bible, it is worth considering whether that particular interpretation is the correct one.

Six days is not an interpretation, It is what is said in scripture For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: (Exo 20:11)

39 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Then you deny that God is omnipotent. (Emphasis on the period)

Untrue.

You deny that God could have created the earth and all things on the earth in six day, Therefore you deny his ability to do so and his Power to accomplish what he says he did. This is definitionally denying his Omnipotence.

42 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Atheists always come back with the saying that all YEC are nothing more than flat earthers

I never made this claim. Your point is irrelevant.

You equated people who believe in 6 day creation with flat earthers and geo-centrists, so there is no denying your own words, unless you are taking post-modernism to another level.

 

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Stand behind that assessment.

You willingly stand behind a false statement... Ok...

To the one who is self deceived, the Truth is a false statement.

 

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Sorry, But I cannot agree to withhold the Truth he has shown me, as that would violate my calling as a watchman.

So your "calling as a watchman" requires you to make false statements? That doesn't sound like a thing God would call a person to do.

To the one who is self deceived, the Truth is a false statement.... Or as Pilate said when questioning Jesus, and the Credo of Post modern Christianity "What is Truth".

 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:10-12)

It is quite obvious to me that you are primed and ready to receive the Strong delusion...Good luck with that. 

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Six days is not an interpretation, It is what is said in scripture For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: (Exo 20:11)

The interpretation of the creation story as literal history is a modern interpretation.   Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the creation story is a literal history. 

15 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Then you deny that God is omnipotent. (Emphasis on the period)

Obviously false.   He never denied that at all.  

16 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You deny that God could have created the earth and all things on the earth in six day, Therefore you deny his ability to do so and his Power to accomplish what he says he did. This is definitionally denying his Omnipotence.

He did?   (Barbarian checks)  No, he did not.   If I somehow missed that, could you show us?    You do understand that saying God didn't do some particular thing is not the same as saying He could not do it, right?   Or is that the problem?

 

[one.opinion]

36 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

To the one who is self deceived, the Truth is a false statement.... Or as Pilate said when questioning Jesus, and the Credo of Post modern Christianity "What is Truth".

 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:10-12)

It is quite obvious to me that you are primed and ready to receive the Strong delusion...Good luck with that. 

This is incredibly ironic coming from the participant in the discussion that repeatedly and continuously makes false statements.

I will say it again, but doubt I will continue to refute the same thing you keep repeating. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe He could have created in 144-hours. I also believe He could have created instantaneously. The evidence He has made available does not match those conclusions.

[dhchristian]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

12 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Show me one that says it supports Old earth.

No one else can find one, either.   So in the absence of anyone of that time saying old Earth or young Earth, we will have to go with the evidence.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exo 31:17)

As you can see, six day creation is part of Hebrew culture, and the basis for which they keep the Sabbath. Jesus as living life Perfectly according to Jewish Law, also Kept the Sabbath, thereby affirming the six day creation. You do believe he lived a perfect sinless life Don't you? The evidence is all over the place if you know what your looking for, for every time the Sabbath is mentioned it is affirming the six day creation in Hebrew culture of the day. And You Know what, soon the end of the 6th millennium will come, and we will enter Millennial Rest In the Millennial reign of Christ. But of course that makes no sense to you because you believe in millions and billions of years.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But you couldn't find even one person in scripture who said so.  You merely assumed what you wanted to believe.

Again, any time the sabbath is mentioned, and any time creation is mentioned it is referring to a six day literal creation. That was the sole believed in creation account in Israel in the first century. Jesus and the Apostles did not have to say six days to affirm the six day creation all they had to say is God created and it was understood to be six days. How can you not see this? Because you are so self deceived....

 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But they didn't invent YE creationism until the 20th century.

YEC has been around since genesis was written, so your statement is false and idiotically so.

 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In fact, the last time I looked, about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with degrees in biology or a related field, didn't accept evolutionary theory.   You've been badly misled about that.   Would you like me to show you the numbers?

Perhaps you should start reading up on the topic more... begin here

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been badly misled.   If you have to argue that theists are deists, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?   If you were actually a theistic evolutionist, you would have known this.   Someone taught you deism and convinced you that was Christianity.

No I am saying that "theistic evolution" is nothing more than Deism in disguise, Just like The Christian science religion is neither Christian nor science, or scientology is pseudo science.

Evolution believes that God created all things and let them evolve into the state they are in, Deists believe God created everything and let it alone and has not intervened in nature. Do you see the similarity? Theists believe that God created everything, and is still creating via divine revelation and his supernatural acts in this world. For example he can heal a person with terminal cancer, He can come and protect a family supernaturally in a Tornado, He can meet Saul on the road to Damascus and turn persecutor of Christians into one of the great voices for Christians, and he can reach down and turn a Phd. evolutionist into a YEC.... Both "theistic evolution", and Deism share this hands off philosophy which is contrary to the God of the Bible who intervenes in his creation and the greatest of those interventions was Christ Jesus coming to redeem us from our fallen state, that we may become a new creation in Him and Through him. The theistic evolutionist has a "form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"(2 Tim. 3:5). Put another way they are half hearted believers.

James Writes: Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. (James 4:8) A double minded person is one who has half submitted himself to God, which is all that the theistic evolutionist is. A double minded person still deals in the World of dualism, which is the Religion of the Freemasons, and other such religions (think Yin and Yang). Dualism is false Christianity, compromised Christianity, Christianity that has a form of Godliness that denies the power thereof, and this problem is not just a problem among theistic evolutionists, but is epidemic known as Post modern Christianity. This is the same thing as cessationism preached in many evangelical churches, this is the same thing as Hebrew roots heresies, which teach a combination of grace and works to save. This is the same as Prosperity preachers whose blessings only come from materialism. The same as the charismatics who teach signs and wonders without spiritual discernment, this epidemic is the spirit of the age, which is the Laodicean church age we are living in. 

There are still brothers and sisters in Christ in all of these groups, but they are deceiving themselves by denying their need for Jesus. They are denying their poverty of Spirit, because they are materially rich, they are denying their Spiritual nakedness, Because they are clothed in religious names such as evangelical or theistic evolutionist, they are denying their spiritual blindness, relying instead on their carnal eyes for their faith, and they wretched, relying on their works and their holy appearances to save them. You can of course continue in this self deception, but I highly suggest that you God to grant you some of His eyesalve he promised this church should they seek it out so that you can see the Lukewarmess of your faith. A half hearted believer. 

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No point in denying it.   You're surprised, and seeing a lot of this for the first time.   It's a little disorienting to learn that so much of what you were taught is just wrong.   But do yourself a favor and go check those sources for yourself, and learn.

Remember, God is truth.   A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

Actually, I have known this, The Hellenistic influences of the early church were all over the place. That is why I have searched out the apostolic church and culture to show you that YEC was their framework and understanding, and their understanding is the purest form of church. I do not follow a religion named after a man, whether that is Lutheranism or Calvinism, or Augustine, I am a Christian, a Christ follower, He is my all in all. You would do well to do the same instead of being Darwinist Christian. I Believe the testimony of Jesus and the Word of God, which clearly says that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, marked by mornings and evenings. You see, the Word of God is clear here, he not only calls them Yowm (as in a time period), but delineates them even further saying morning and evening as in a single day, for a time period has many mornings and evenings, but a day only has one morning and evening. 

So I stand on the Testimony of the Word of God.... Where Do you stand? 

[dhchristian]

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is incredibly ironic coming from the participant in the discussion that repeatedly and continuously makes false statements.

I will say it again, but doubt I will continue to refute the same thing you keep repeating. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe He could have created in 144-hours. I also believe He could have created instantaneously. The evidence He has made available does not match those conclusions.

If You believe he could, why is it that you deny that he did as he said, despite the evidence? Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (heb. 11:1) 

Once you take that leap of faith, then you will see the evidence that what he said was true, Right now you deny that what he said was true. that is when you will go from partial unbelief to fully trusting in Him who is our all in all. Or you can continue in your partial unbelief like Israel did, and not enter the promised land. Choice is your to make, I cannot argue you into the kingdom of God. 

I will be praying for you, God Bless.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

The interpretation of the creation story as literal history is a modern interpretation.   Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the creation story is a literal history. 

Read exodus 20:11 again... It is plain and simple statement. 6 days each consisting of one (singular) morning and evening. That is the testimony of the Word of God, and I trust His Word more than I trust science.  

 

 

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

If you can show me how the Bible, citing a non-literal verse, converts it to a literal verse, you've got an argument.   Otherwise, as you learned earlier, the text itself say that the "days" aren't literal ones.

6 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

But of course that makes no sense to you because you believe in millions and billions of years.

So the evidence says.   And in the absence of anything in the Bible denying it, there you are.

And as noted, you couldn't find even one person of Jesus' time saying that the creation week is a literal history.

Barbarian observes:

In fact, the last time I looked, about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with degrees in biology or a related field, didn't accept evolutionary theory.   You've been badly misled about that.   Would you like me to show you the numbers?

(apparently wants to learn)

Sure.  First go to Project Steve.

https://ncse.ngo/project-steve

They have a list of people with doctorates in biology or a related discipline, who are named "Steve" or a variant like "Stephanie."     Check the latest numbers.

Then go to the Discovery Institute's list of scientists who doubt Darwin

https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

Count the number of people there who have doctorates in biology or a related field who are named "Steve" or a variant.

Compare the numbers.   Last time I looked about 300 to 1 favoring evolution.    Good luck.

16 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

YEC has been around since genesis was written, so your statement is false and idiotically so.

As you learned earlier, YEC was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.    I even showed you how evangelical Christians as late as the early 20th century were OE creationists

18 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution believes that God created all things and let them evolve into the state they are in

No.   Evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of life.   As Everette Dirkson observed, "People are usually down on things they aren't up on."   I thought you claimed to have been a theistic evolutionist.  You don't seem to know the first thing about evolutionary theory.    You were a deist and imagined you were a theist.

Again, you've settled for a modern revision of Christianity, and imagine that to be a requirement for Christians.   You aren't going to hell for being a creationist, but you do put your salvation in danger by denying the Christian faith of more traditional Christians.   

Don't make that mistake.

 

.

[Eman_3]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says

 

 

You are now being very offensive, naming me a creationist.

If you actually stopped to read, then think, it is plainly obvious I do not belong in that camp.

Shame on you.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Eman_3