God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

On 1/10/2020 at 2:41 PM, omega2xx said:

For example, when pressed for evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, evolutionists often cite examples of natural selection. This is an equivocation fallacy since natural selection has been deftly substituted for evolution mid-argument. These two terms have very different definitions.

For example, when pressed for evidence that evolutionary theory is false, creationist often cite "molecules-to-man evolution."  This is an equivocation fallacy, since evolutionary theory is about the way living populations change over time, not how abiogenesis happened.   These two terms have very different definitions.

Natural selection is an agency of evolution, not evolution, as I've shown you before.   Indeed, under the right circumstances, natural selection can prevent evolution.  Likewise common descent is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself.  

Now realize that AiG admits the fact of speciation. In fact,they go beyond macroevolution, admitting that new genera and families come from existing populations.   In some cases, they admit even more extensive evolution.    And thereby, they also admit the fact of common descent, although they are unwilling to admit universal common descent.

 

 

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, Cletus said:

If anything in this post does not make sense please re-read the entire post beginning at the start and read it completely to gain understanding.  it may take a few times reading thru this to understand fully and i do apologize for any inconvenience but i want to address the simplest point here. 

You certainly earned points for humor!

However, repeating something doesn't make it any more true, now matter how hard you try.

First, why do you presume to be the ultimate arbiter of what "evolution" means?

Second, I presented definitions from several different sources earlier in this thread that backs up exactly what I said.

Do you have anything to substantiate your (humorously repeated) claim that I am wrong?

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Cletus said:

 sorry but no, thats not evolution. 
 

By definition, it is.   Remember what the scientific definition is: "a change in allele frequency in a population over time."

nothing actually changed from one thing to another thing.

The allele frequency changed from one thing to another.   And so it's evolution.  You're confused because you're trying to make evolution into something that happens to individual organisms.   Organisms don't evolve.   Populations do.   

7 hours ago, Cletus said:

So, sorry but no, thats not evolution.  humans did not come from monkeys or apes. 

Humans did not evolve from monkeys, which are too highly evolved to have given rise to humans.   However, humans are apes.   We and chimpanzees are an ingroup, with the rest of the apes an outgroup.   Would you like to learn how we know?

7 hours ago, Cletus said:

but no, thats not evolution. the t-rex did not change into a chicken.  or an ostrich. 

Of course not.   But small feathered dinosaurs did eventually evolve into birds.    As Kurt Wise writes, the transitional forms in the fossil record are strong evidence for this fact, but evidence like organic molecules recovered from dinosaur fossils also confirm the fact.   Would you like to learn about that?

7 hours ago, Cletus said:

 there is in fact zero evidence of evolution.

Your fellow creationists don't agree with you.   ID inventor and YE creationist Philip Johnson writes in "Darwin on Trial" that Archaeopteryx is evidence for this.   Dr. Kurt Wise, a YE creationist,admits that there is good evidence for evolution inthe fossil record.    YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood admits:

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.

...

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

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

Really no point in denial.  Find a way to accept the truth.

 

[Behold]

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

 

 

God said that He made everything "after its Kind", as in, fully formed, fully created.

"after its Kind", does not mean  using  birth, a seed, or a time to wait for the creation to evolve and  manifest later as its fully formed self.

God said, "after its kind", as in, fully, formed, ... completed, .... 

So, does the theory of evolution accept this as Truth?   Do you?

If it doesn't, and you don't,  then what do you have unless you try to bend the idea of "after its kind", into the concept of "needs more time to become fully evolved ?

And if you teach that, you are contradicting God's  OWN account of how HE Creates.

"after its Kind", denies the NEED for evolution, which in fact, denies the "theory".

Edited January 12, 2020 by Behold

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, Behold said:

God said that He made everything "after its Kind", as in, fully formed, fully created.

"after its Kind", does not mean  using  birth, a seed, or a time to wait for the creation to evolve and  manifest later as its fully formed self.

Those beliefs are man's addition to scripture, which says no such things.

13 minutes ago, Behold said:

So, does the theory of evolution accept this as Truth?   Do you?

Those are just men's additions to scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

15 minutes ago, Behold said:

If it doesn't, and you don't,  then what do you have unless you try to bend the idea of "after its kind", into the concept of "needs more time to become fully evolved ?

There is no "fully evolved" in the sense of completed.   Scripture does not say how God created things after their kind.

16 minutes ago, Behold said:

And if you teach that, you are contradicting God's  OWN account of how HE Creates.

No, I'm contradicting the additions men made to God's account.  Always a bad idea to add to scripture.

17 minutes ago, Behold said:

"after its Kind", denies the NEED for evolution, which in fact, denies the "theory".

I know you want to believe it, but the Bible offers no support for that new doctrine of men.

[Behold]

Lets look at it again..

For evolution, this "theory",  to be in fact  a reality,   there has to be a NEED for it, or at least a REASON for it.

SO, "after its KIND", is God defining that BECAUSE He created EVERYTHING fully formed &  fully CREATED, ... this then  NEGATES the NEED or REASON for a "theory" of  evolution, which then in fact DENIES and DISAVOWS a "theory" that teaches  contrary to the Truth, regarding what GOD said HE DID.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Behold

[omega2xx]

On 1/10/2020 at 6:59 PM, one.opinion said:

I've waited, but just want to make a few quick observations.

1. You've claimed for about 20 days t you have only verified my hat I can't provided evidence for natural selection. I've now provided evidence for natural selection.

You think you have but you have only verified my claim that you do not know what constitutes evidence.  You continue to think that if someone  tells what they did and offers their opinion about it, that  is evidence .  Real evidence requires the cause for something to  happen.  For example, we can trace albino ism to a mutation of the gene that determines skin  traits.  Even in that case there is no change of species,  Only a alteration of the skin pigment.  An albino male is still homo sapian.

 

On 1/10/2020 at 6:59 PM, one.opinion said:

2. This is utterly false. In what way does "natural selection is a fact" refute natural selection?

You are right about this, but they did not explain how natural selection caused a change of species.  In fact their example of the sickly gazelle, the species did not change, it only eliminated the sickly ones.  That example reinforces that natural selection, is about survival of the species, not the change s the species.

3. Now you are quibbling with definitions, which is exactly why I wanted to agree on a definition before providing evidence. You refused to do it and now you are going to try to make up some definition (known only to you) and use that definition to claim you were not provided evidence. THAT, friend, is what is actually known as "moving the goalpost", not a request to decided on a definition before providing evidence.

I haven't mentioned their definition.  I will accept "survival of the fittest."  However survival maintains the species,  it does not change it.

Your strategy for refuting evolution is to attempt to play word games.

My only strategy is to help you understand what constitutes  verifiable evidence and if you ever do, you will see that you have none

 

Below ae some comment from ICR, which I consider have more qualified scientist than AIG

"But these assertions are not without serious problems, voiced by modern Darwinists (neo-Darwinists) themselves. In a refreshing admission, a noted evolutionist stated, "However, in 1859 when [Charles Darwin] published the Origin, he actually did not have a single clear-cut piece of evidence for the existence of [natural] selection."2 (See also: Margulis & Sagan, Acquiring Genomes, Basic Books, 2002.)

A professor at Nottingham Trent University asks, ". . . even if the neo-Darwinians are correct, at what level is natural selection supposed to work?"3 Certainly it's not on the very small level, "How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology."4 The late S.J. Gould described the limits of this supposed creative process, "Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress."5 And that's our point! Creation scientists have no problem with Gould's evaluation of natural selection, adding that selection has nothing to do with the origin of species (macroevolution). Four other evolutionary biologists agree, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution]."6

If you are really interested in the truth about natural selection, if you goggle "ICR, natural selection," they will give 8 reasons it is not a valid scientific explanation that supports evolution.

Love, peace, joy

 

On 1/10/2020 at 6:59 PM, one.opinion said:

 

 

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

For example, when pressed for evidence that evolutionary theory is false, creationist often cite "molecules-to-man evolution."  This is an equivocation fallacy, since evolutionary theory is about the way living populations change over time, not how abiogenesis happened.   These two terms have very different definitions.

Natural selection is an agency of evolution, not evolution, as I've shown you before.   Indeed, under the right circumstances, natural selection can prevent evolution.  Likewise common descent is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself.  

Now realize that AiG admits the fact of speciation. In fact,they go beyond macroevolution, admitting that new genera and families come from existing populations.   In some cases, they admit even more extensive evolution.    And thereby, they also admit the fact of common descent, although they are unwilling to admit universal common descent.

Natural selection can't be proved.  It is about preservation of a species, not a change of species.

love, peace, joy

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Natural selection can't be proved.

As you now realize, it's directly observed, and even creationist websites admit the fact.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

It is about preservation of a species, not a change of species.

As you also learned, even creationist websites admit that new species appear from older species.

 

[Behold]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Those beliefs are man's addition to scripture, which says no such things.

Those are just men's additions to scripture to make it more acceptable to them.

There is no "fully evolved" in the sense of completed.   Scripture does not say how God created things after their kind.

No, I'm contradicting the additions men made to God's account.  Always a bad idea to add to scripture.

I know you want to believe it, but the Bible offers no support for that new doctrine of men.

 

Scripture does not have to say "how" God created, it only needs to explain THAT He created it all.  YET< it does explain exactly How God created everything....    Colossians 1:16

That you here denied  the bible as Truth, is something that you can work out with the One who wrote it, after you die.

He'll be there.   Take your time.

I see that you essentially  stated that Genesis is a myth,, as you define its truth as "men's addition".... and that these  "men", whom you didn't name or define,  according to your scriptural slander....wrote the myth.... as you are defining your personal opinion regarding the word of God.

You know, its one thing to be a bible corrector, but its a different league of your own to be found on a Christian Forum castigating the word of God,  as you are doing , and even worse to be doing it with no quotes, no evidence, no proof, .... just your opinion.

I think that i told you on another Christian Forum where you were found slandering the Work of God,  that your God is your opinion, and i see that you are always the same, no matter where i find you next.

And if your opinion is not your God, then its certainly not the  Holy Bible that you just spit on.....in your post to me, so that all could see.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Behold