God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals.

As mentioned that is totally irrelevant since they are post flood and present nature people. Neanderthals are post flood man.

 

Quote

There's really no point in denying the fact.   If you argue that Neandertals weren't humans, it just gets harder for you.

I am not sure why you bother debating if you can't pay attention. You were told several times that post flood man is irrelevant since they would have lived in the present nature. If you mention it again there will be no choice but to see it as dishonest. 

Quote

 

  If you argue that they were, then by definition, we've evolved from that time, since our genome is significantly different today.

And as you learned, a change in allele frequencies over time is what evolution is.

 

As mentioned more than once already, there was a lot of evolving in the former nature and also some evolving in this present nature. That has zero to do with man being related to flatworms or apes. (and yes we know two bit so called science loves to group man into the ape category, but I am talking about actual apes and monkeys)

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals. Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals.

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

As mentioned that is totally irrelevant since they are post flood and present nature people. Neanderthals are post flood man.

You think Noah was a Neandertal? 

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

As mentioned that is totally irrelevant since they are post flood and present nature people. Neanderthals are post flood man.

Sorry, that excuse won't work, either.   If all humans are descended from Noah, then all the changes are evolved.   And if Noah's genes were different than Adam's and Eve's genes, then the population that lead to Noah also evolved.   Either way, you're wrong.

 

6 hours ago, dad2 said:

As mentioned more than once already, there was a lot of evolving in the former nature and also some evolving in this present nature. That has zero to do with man being related to flatworms or apes.

For example, most human genes are also present in chimpanzees.   In fact, humans and chimpanzees have more genes in common than either has in common with other apes.   Once again, you're stuck either way.

 

 

,

[dad2]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Quote

Barbarian observes:

Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals. Sorry, that's wrong.    Scientists have sequenced the Neandertal genome and modern humans outside of Africa carry a good amount of genes from Neandertals.

You think Noah was a Neandertal?  

 If post flood man were after the time of the flood, why would this make Noah a Neanderthal? So once again you are engaging in strawmwn and not debating in good faith at all.

Quote

Sorry, that excuse won't work, either.   If all humans are descended from Noah, then all the changes are evolved. 

Once again, there was lots of evolution before the nature change (presumably about the time of the tower of Babel after the flood) and lots after. And, no, we did not all descend from Noah there were four couples on the ark. (additionally, the forces and laws that acted on genetics were likely different, so that whatever DNA Noah may have had cannot be said to be like modern DNA exactly.

 

Quote

  And if Noah's genes were different than Adam's and Eve's genes, then the population that lead to Noah also evolved.   Either way, you're wrong.

Since the nature change was after the flood this is another strawman. By the way d you have something against adapting and evolving? You seem to think that any evolving means God got Genesis wrong and that Adam sprung up from the dirt or whatever. No. As mentioned, the processes of adapting and evolving not only also existed in the different past nature, but happened at a very very fast way.

Quote

For example, most human genes are also present in chimpanzees.   In fact, humans and chimpanzees have more genes in common than either has in common with other apes.   Once again, you're stuck either way.

That has nothing to do with evolution of man from monkey/ape/chimp/same relatives etc. That does show the utter confusion of the TOE though. It also explains why some people move heaven and earth to try to make God a liar about creation, and conform to what they think science demands.

My thoughts on that sort of thing is that I wish that they were hot or cold.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

For example, most human genes are also present in chimpanzees.   In fact, humans and chimpanzees have more genes in common than either has in common with other apes.   Once again, you're stuck either way.

30 minutes ago, dad2 said:

That has nothing to do with evolution of man from monkey/ape/chimp/same relatives etc.

What it demonstrates is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that diverged earlier from other apes.

No point in denial.   The data clearly show this to be a fact.  And we can test the idea by comparing genes of organisms of known common descent.

 

[dad2]

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

What it demonstrates is that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor that diverged earlier from other apes.

In no way is that remotely related to a shadow of the truth. Just because adapating and evolving in the modern nature involves reproduction, does not mean it also did in the former nature!

You have to prove the same nature also used to exist in the past. Otherwise, your beliefs are not fact or valid. You certainly are in no position to reinvent/disbelieve/overrule God in Genesis! Get used to it.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by dad2

[HAZARD]

Gen 1:26 
And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR LIKENESS: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

We were created by God in His Image and after His likeness. To believe anything else is of the devil. 

God is not a Neandertal, Ape, Chimp, or any other weird species. 

Evolution should be called Devilution.

Don't be discouraged poor little fly, you'll be a chipmunk by and by,
Ages later we can see, you'll be a full grown chimpanzee,
Next we see with a prophets ken, you'll take your place in the ranks of men.
And then in the great sweet by and by, we'll all be angels you and I.
Why should I swat you, dear little fly? Prospective chum of my home on high,
This is what Darwin says, not I.

[one.opinion]

33 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

We were created by God in His Image and after His likeness.

Do you think His image and His likeness is physical or spiritual? What is God right now, physical entity or spiritual entity? I think it is much more likely that His image and His likeness refer to the spiritual level.

35 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Evolution should be called Devilution.

God created life with the ability to evolve. Therefore, evolution is part of His creation. It is silly to make up words to try to claim a mechanism He created is evil.

[dad2]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

God created life with the ability to evolve. Therefore, evolution is part of His creation.

False. Evolution is a word that comes with baggage. It does not just deal in actual evolving we see today. It deals in claims that life owes itself to the processes of evolution. In christians that claim TOE is correct that means they deny Scripture by twisting it beyond any and all reason and in contradiction to the book as a whole and the Spirit of God.

[HAZARD]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Do you think His image and His likeness is physical or spiritual? What is God right now, physical entity or spiritual entity? I think it is much more likely that His image and His likeness refer to the spiritual level.

God created life with the ability to evolve. Therefore, evolution is part of His creation. It is silly to make up words to try to claim a mechanism He created is evil.

I don't think anything. I believe what is written in the Word of God. God has a spirit body, just like the angels he created, and they have been seen by men. 

Heb. 13:2 
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 

The difference between a spirit body and a physical body is substance.

 God the Father has a body with bodily parts as we have and this also proves the Father Son and Holy Spirit are not "ONE in body but 'ONE" in unity in all things.

God has a spirit body with bodily parts like a man. This is proved by hundreds of Scriptures that do not need interpretation. God is a Spirit being, infinite, eternal, immutable, self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, invisible, impartial, immortal, absolutly holy, full of wisdom, full of knowledge, and just in all things. God is known in Scripture by over two hundred names. He is describes as being like any other person as to having a body, soul, and spirit (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3 ;  Dan. 7:9-14 ; 10:5-7). He is a spirit being with a body (Dan. 7:9-14 ; 10:5-6 ; 9-19 ; Exodus 24:11 ;  Ezek. 1:26-28 , Acts 7:54-59 ; Rev. 4:2-4 ; 5:1 ; 5-7 ; 22:4-5), shape (John 5:37), form (Phil. 2:5-7, same Greek word as in Mark 16:12, which refers to bodily form); and an image and likeness of a man (Gen. 1:26 ; 9:6 ; Ezek. 1:26-28 ; 1 Cor. 11:7, Jas. 3:9; Dan. 7:9-14 ; 10:5-6).

He has a heart (Gen. 6:6 ; 8:21). hands and fingers (Exod. 31:18, Psalms 8:3-6, Rev. 5:1 ;  6-7),  Nostrils (Ps. 18:8),  mouth (Num. 12:8), lips and tongue Isa. 30:27, feet (Ezek. 1:27 ; Exodus 24:10); eyes, eyelids, sight (Ps. 11:4 ;  18:24 ; 33:18) ; voice (Ps. 29 ;  Rev. 10:3-4 ; Gen. 1) ; breath (Gen. 2:7) ; ears (Ps. 18:6)  ; head, hair, face, arms (Dan. 7:9-14 ; 10:5-19 ;  Rev. 5:1 ; loins (Ezek. 1:26 ; 28; 8:1-4); bodily presence (Gen. 3:8 ;  18:1-22 ; Job 1:6-12 ; 2:1-7 ;  Exodus 24:10-11  ; and many other bodily parts as required by Him to be a person with a body.

God goes from place to place just like any one else (Gen. 3:8 ; 11:5 ;  18:1-22,  33 ; 19:24 ; 32:24-32 ; 35:13 ;  Zech. 14:5 ;  Titus 2:13). God is omnipresent but not omnibody, that is His presence can be felt everywhere but His body is not everywhere. God wears cloths (Dan. 7:9-14 ; 10:5-19 ;  God eats food (Gen. 18:1-22 ;  Exodus 24:11).

There is not one Scripture in the Bible which states that God is intangible, immaterial, without a body, or bodily parts, and passions except John 4:24, “God is a spirit,” and this certainly does not teach that He is without a body. The difference between Spirit and flesh and bone is substance.

[Starman]

I’ve been following this topic with interest, having a science and engineering background myself.  One.opinion’s knowledge of genetics is impressive which allows an actual scientific debate, rather than just the exchange of quotations on the subject. However, taking a step back it seems that what’s really going on here is an exegetical debate, as to whether it’s possible to simultaneously affirm biblical inerrancy and the standard view of evolution. Or whether YEC is the only view compatible with a proper reading of scripture.  The latter approach  compels some to feel that defending the faith requires a refutation of the current scientific view of evolution, resulting in some emotion and defensiveness entering the discussion.  

So I think a more fruitful discussion might be to look at harmonizing the old earth, evolutionary approach with a high view of Scripture.  So my question to one.opinion, or others that share his view, is how do you harmonize your scientific view with the creation account in Genesis? Do you fall back on the day-age approach, a form of gap theory or what?  Perhaps if a scheme aligning with Scripture could be explained some of the underlying conflict could be resolved.  

Does this make sense?