God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Your are not understanding what is being written here. Within the DNA segments that code for proteins, the similarity is indeed around 99% identical. What is not mentioned is that in the remaining 98% of the genome that does not code for proteins, the sequence similarity between human and chimp genomes is still extremely high - roughly 96%.

It is a complete falsehood that the chimp and human genomes are 2% similar.

I can see why you were hesitant to discuss scientific evidence now. Just a tip - it is difficult to argue against things you know nothing about.

Here is the source link for the statements made by Myself and the Original link I posted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11247

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443589304577633560336453228

Here is an attempt to debunk it from an known evolutionist source....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/friction-over-function-encode/

Very telling article of how evolutionist propaganda  works exactly.

I do not Just Post the sites, and the links, but I actually verify their accuracy to the best of my ability. Those links should give you a couple of hours of reading, maybe less if you do not have to stumble through them like the Novice that I am.... 

And Finally I wanted to quote this article in its entirety....

Darwinist biochemist Larry Moran is panicked. The recent publication in Nature and several other science journals of 30 papers by the ENCODE project that demonstrate that at least 80% of the human genome has biochemical function is a catastrophe for Darwinists like Moran and others who have misrepresented science in service of their personal ideology.

Moran is an atheist, and accordingly he restricts his science to materialist interpretations. The junk DNA fiasco is a direct consequence of forcing materialist interpretations on science.

The discovery in the 1970's that much of the genome contains DNA that does not code for proteins could be interpreted in two basic ways. Either the DNA had function, yet to be discovered, or the DNA was "junk", left over from eons of evolution in which random mutations that did not have phenotypic expression accumulated in the genome, like dust in an unswept room.

Scientists who did not restrict their inferences to materialist inferences-- such as scientists who accept intelligent design or at least do not rule out intelligent agency in nature-- generally inferred that the "junk" DNA in fact had function, which was yet to be discovered. They predicted that the genome would be found to be an elegant highly integrated system of gene expression and regulation, not a trash can for genetic garbage.

Darwinists and materialists predicted that the DNA without apparent function indeed was without function, and that it was in fact a physical manifestation of the "randomness" that underlies all of biological change, as understood in the materialist paradigm.

Over the past several years, evidence has accumulated that has tended to support the ID view of junk DNA.

Now the publication of 30 papers in three leading journals demolishes the Darwinist/materialist prediction, and as you can imagine, the folks who guard the materialist inference in science are in a lather.

Moran in particular is apoplectic. He denies the findings of the ENCODE consortium:
 

... All of this evidence indicates that most of our genome is junk. This conclusion is consistent with what we know about evolution...

Contra Moran, the lead scientist on the project, Ewan Birney, explains the conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional:
 

we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity. [emphasis mine]

Moran has threatened the ENCODE scientists on the project with thinly-veiled retribution, and has fixated on his obsession with the term "functional" used by the ENCODE scientists to describe the findings in their data. Moran's obsession with the term function is a distraction. Any biological function "alive with activity" is evidence that it is not "dead wood". And that is clear evidence against the Darwinist prediction.


Moran is candid at least. He pulls no punches. He has advocated the targeted academic destruction of students and scientists who do not share his atheist beliefs, and he threatened the ENCODE scientists with thinly-veiled retribution:
 

I reserve my harshest criticism for the scientists, especially Ewan Birney who is the lead analysis coordinator for the project and who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the consortium. Unless other members of the consortium speak out, I'll assume they agree with Ewan Birney. They bear the same responsibility for what has happened.

Now he admits (about the ENCODE breakthrough):
 

"This is going to make my life very complicated"

Damn right, Larry. Let me add this: those of us who have been appalled for years by your ideologically-skewed junk science and your public threats against Christian students and scientists are going to make this remarkable scientific breakthrough as complicated for you as possible. 

 

http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/11/darwinist-larry-moran-encode-is-going.html

 

[dhchristian]

Here Is a great article to read on the dangers of theistic evolution.

 

10 dangers of theistic evolution

by Werner Gitt

 

Churches taking a public stand against atheistic evolutionary indoctrination send a strong message to theistic evolutionists in their own ranks.

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.¹

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1–2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.²

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

• Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
• In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8–11).
• In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4–5).
• Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18–19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men’ (Philippians 2:5–7).

The idea of evolution undermines the foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus’ incarnation with evolutionary thought: “Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review … of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the ‘incarnation’ of God … The absoluteness with which the event in Bethlehem has up to now been regarded in Christian philosophy, is contrary to the identification of this man who personifies this event (= Jesus), with man having the nature of homo sapiens.”³

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16–18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

• The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
• The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
• The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
• Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
• The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

• God created matter without using any available material.
• God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.⁴

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27–28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’⁵ Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Conclusion

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

https://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

• God created matter without using any available material.
• God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.⁴

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27–28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’⁵ Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

 

 

[one.opinion]

@dhchristian, you have a couple of posts that deserve a considered response. It will probably be a few days before I have the free time to address them. Have a Merry Christmas, I'll be back in a while.

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You have your opinion and I have mine. However, it is a fact the the Bible does not state, or even imply, that populations of kinds cannot change.

The Bible also  does not state or even imply that populations of kinds can change, and "after their kind, certainly implies they can't.

We have heaps of evidence that say populations do change over time, including direct observation.

Then post the evidence instead of just saying it happens and you certainly do not  have any direct observation it happens.

You have been shown several times in this very thread that the generation of new species has indeed been observed.

More rhetoric, but no evidence.

For many species, this is true, but there have been observed incidents of directly observed generation of new species.

Talk is cheap, name them.

The Barbarian and I have both shown you evidence in multiple occasions. We cannot go over to your evidence and read it to you. You have somehow missed the evidence we have repeatedly provided.

Not true, all you have done is post your opinions, but did not include the science that made it possible.  Statements with no evidence are of no value.

I’m done for the day, as I have important work to accomplish.

You said you would post the evidence for natural selection,.  I haven't seen it yet.  Are you have trouble finding some?

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You have your opinion and I have mine. However, it is a fact the the Bible does not state, or even imply, that populations of kinds cannot change.

The Bible also  does not state or even imply that populations of kinds can change, and "after their kind, certainly implies they can't.

Since populations do change over time, it is quite evident that the inerrant Bible does not imply that populations cannot.

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Then post the evidence instead of just saying it happens and you certainly do not  have any direct observation it happens.

 

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

More rhetoric, but no evidence.

 

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Talk is cheap, name them.

 

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not true, all you have done is post your opinions, but did not include the science that made it possible.  Statements with no evidence are of no value.

I have provided evidence on at least 3 occasions, as has @The Barbarian. It is not worth my effort to keep providing you evidence you will not consider. You clearly are not interesting in a sharing of ideas, only on shouting down those with differing opinions.

17 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You said you would post the evidence for natural selection,.  I haven't seen it yet.  Are you have trouble finding some?

I asked you yesterday to explain natural selection to me. That way, when I do provide evidence for it, you cannot make up some definition in your own mind and deny the evidence I provide as you did when I provided evidence for evolution (heritable change over time).

[omega2xx]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, as you see, it's not.   You might not agree with the definition of information, but that is the way it's calculated.  

The new information caused by mutations is not calculated, it is observed.  The mutation that causes the kid to be born an albino can be seen.   The lack  of pigment is not new information. it is an  alteration of the old information, and it certainly does not result in a new species.

the internet work as it does.  There And we know it works, because (for example) it allows us to communicate with spacecraft over billions of kilometers of space over low-powered radio transmissions, and lets 's really no point in you denying it.

To try and use proven communication truths to prove a genetic concept is absurd.  They are not related.

No, that's impossible.  There is no "gene pool" in organisms.  

Of course there is.  If the organism does not have genes, their offspring can' have any traits.  Now it is more evident you don't understand even basic genetics.

In humans, there can only be two alleles for every gene.    So no.   The mutation was caused by a substitution of glutamic acid for lysin in the beta-globulin chain. 

As usual, you just make a statement but offer no supporting evidence.  Even if what you say is true, and it seems doubtful,  it never results in a new species.  You want to have evolution without a change of species,

As you learned earlier, evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   So yes, it's evolution.    You've confused evolution and "macroevolution."

The only thing I have learned from you is you never support what you claim.  What you have learned from me is that time does not change proven genetic truths.    You have yet to explain how a change is allele frequency results in a new species.  In fact you have not explained  what causes a change of allele frequency.  All you eve do is parrot some evo talking point.  Why should i believe what you say, when you do not provide any evidence?

 

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes, the universe was created from nothing, even if life was not.

Some life was.  The great sea monsters and every living thing and birds(Gen 1:21) and man(Gen 1:26-27).

 

[omega2xx]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Since populations do change over time, it is quite evident that the inerrant Bible does not imply that populations cannot.

Time can't cause a new population.   That is just eh usual, unproven evo rhetoric."After   their kind" certainly implies populations can't change.

I have provided evidence on at least 3 occasions, as has @The Barbarian. It is not worth my effort to keep providing you evidence you will not consider. You clearly are not interesting in a sharing of ideas, only on shouting down those with differing opinions.

You have  provided what you  consider evidence. You can't read minds, and have no idea what I am interested in.  You only consider my responses as shouting down, because you have no real evidence/  You consider me asking for evidence, demanding, and now it is shouting you down.  You need to invest in a good dictionary and look up the meaning of some of the words you use  incorrectly

I asked you yesterday to explain natural selection to me. That way, when I do provide evidence for it, you cannot make up some definition in your own mind and deny the evidence I provide as you did when I provided evidence for evolution (heritable change over time).

Don't try to put your response off on me.  You said you could provide the evidence for natural selection, and did not require anything on my part.  Now you demand something from me.  If you can do it, do it.  You have not provided any evidence for evolution being heritable change over time.  You have only offered your unproven OPINION.

There is nothing in the gene pool  of parents that can cause their kid to have a trait they do not have.  Without a new gene evolution can't happen.  If you really understood genes and and genetics, you would understand evolution is impossible genetically.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by omega2xx

[dhchristian]

13 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Moran is an atheist, and accordingly he restricts his science to materialist interpretations. The junk DNA fiasco is a direct consequence of forcing materialist interpretations on science.

Materialism is a form of Monism that states there is nothing that exists outside of the material world, Thus denying any supernatural interference in the processes of Life, Biogenesis and evolution.

Theistic evolution Allows for a supernatural actor to be involved in creation, at certain Punctuations (Punctuated Equilibrium) But prefers not to be involved, instead sets up laws and abilities that allow for change in species over time in a materialistic sense.

Deism States that God created the system like a clock and then let it run its course without interruption over time using the laws of nature he created to Govern that change.

Theism states that God acts on His creation in supernatural ways, intervening in the lives of people supernaturally daily, and does so according to His Will, which is greater than the Laws of Nature he created. 

Creationism States that God Created the earth and everything in them in six literal days, a supernatural Act, that Only God is capable of doing. Yes He also created natural laws that Govern his creation, But He can and does intervene daily in the affairs of creation, by making Us a New creation in Christ Jesus. 

The point of this is that theistic evolution is a misnomer, It has more in common with Deism than it has with theism. It has taken the materialism of Atheism and tried to mix it with an Omnipotent Creator God. The two do not mix despite their best efforts.

Many a theistic evolutionist Has never come face to face with the Holy (thrice Holy) God, and instead God is merely a concept for them in their Mind rather than a Person who they KNOW. Any Christian will tell you there are two Kinds of Knowing, when it comes to a supernatural God, there is the mental ascent, which makes one admit there has to be a God, and there is Knowing in an interpersonal way Of God who is "With us", which is the concept of the name Emmanuel.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23) 

The Ultimate Act of God creating is exemplified in what happened at the start of that fourth millennial day when Jesus came As the "sun of righteousness shone for that very first time But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. (Mal. 4:2)

You see, For us who are a New creation in Christ Jesus, He continues his work of creation in us till on that sixth millennial Day he recreates Man.... Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 John 3:1-3)

All of this understanding only comes from believing that He is Omnipotent and at work in us even now supernaturally and not just materialistically. focusing on the materialistic aspect and elevating that to God is just a form of Idolatry that Limits God as a deist does.

Merry Christmas to all. Celebrate "God with us". 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Time can't cause a new population.

No, and that claim was not made. Populations absolutely do evolve (heritable change over time) with enough time, though. But time is not enough to cause speciation.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You have  provided what you  consider evidence. You can't read minds, and have no idea what I am interested in.

If you were truly interested in evidence, you would look at it when it is supplied. The fact that you haven't looked when it has been supplied numerous times doesn't require mind-reading to form a reasonable conclusion.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Don't try to put your response off on me.  You said you could provide the evidence for natural selection, and did not require anything on my part. 

You said in this thread that evolution has never been observed. I said it was a false statement. To prove it, I gave several examples of evolution (heritable change over time) that have been directly observed. You countered with an incorrect definition that assumes that only if new species arise can it truly be evolution. I provided 5 definitions from other sources that showed my definition was correct, but you will not accept that your definition is incorrect.

That is why I want to settle what natural selection is prior to me providing evidence for it. I doesn't take a lot of imagination to predict you will do the same thing when I provided evidence for natural selection.

If you don't really care enough to try to explain natural selection, then we can just simply agree to disagree. I think 103 pages is probably enough to arrive at the "agree to disagree" point :-)