God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

On 2/26/2020 at 1:46 PM, The Barbarian said:

It's not clear to you, because, as more than one person has pointed out, you don't know much about it.   Dr. Wise said that there was very good evidence for it in the sense of common descent.   But it technically means "speciation."

Actually, Wise thinks not, even though he admits the evidence is very good for that.   He expresses confidence that eventually, a reasonable creationist explanation will be possible.

AIG and ICR now admit common descent to the level of families or orders (and sometimes higher).  

He disagrees with you.   He points out a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record that indicates evolution.    His fellow YE biologist Todd Wood agrees with him.  This goes back to the point that you don't know much about biology, and it's hurting you here.

That's what most Christians do.   Men, relying on their own wisdom, reinterpreted the creation account as a literal history.   Most of us would rather believe Him.   As you know, your salvation doesn't depend on it, but so long as you rely on man and your own wisdom, you're going to be misled.

 

 

You keep harping on Dr. Wise's evidence, but never post it.  Why?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You keep harping on Dr. Wise's evidence, but never post it.  Why?

Wise cited it for you...

"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."

27. Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115.28. Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323.29. Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467.30. Carroll, Ref. 29, p. 473.31. Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219.32. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527–530.33. Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177.34. Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107.35. Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514.36. Gingerich, Ref. 1; Gould, Ref. 2; Zimmer, Ref. 3.37. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527–549.38. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education, 31:140–144.

Didn't you read the link?

[omega2xx]

On 3/6/2020 at 6:12 PM, The Barbarian said:

Wise cited it for you...

"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."

27. Stewart, W. N. and Rothwell, G. W., 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolutionof Plants, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England, pp. 114-115.28. Gould, S. J., 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Natureof History, Norton, New York, pp. 321–323.29. Carroll, R. L., 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Freeman, New York, p. 467.30. Carroll, Ref. 29, p. 473.31. Hopson, J. A., 1994. Synapsid evolution and the radiation of non-eutherian mammals. In:Major Features of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Porthero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 190–219.32. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527–530.33. Ostrom, J. H., 1994. On the origin of birds and of avian flight. In:MajorFeatures of Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 160–177.34. Thomson, K. S., 1994. The origin of the tetrapods. In:Major Featuresof Vertebrate Evolution [Short Courses in Paleontology Number 7], D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch (eds), Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tennessee, pp. 85–107.35. Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R., 1994. The origin and early diversification of tetrapods. Nature, 368:507–514.36. Gingerich, Ref. 1; Gould, Ref. 2; Zimmer, Ref. 3.37. Carroll, Ref. 29, pp. 527–549.38. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education, 31:140–144.

Didn't you read the link?

Thanks for confirming that you don't have a clue about what constitutes verifiable evidence. 

All you have done is post what they say happened.  Evidence requires HOW it happened, was it witnessed and can it be repeated. 

I will answer the last 2 requirements.  Nothing they said was witnessed and none of it can be repeated.  If it can't be repeated, it can't be true.

I live in Knoxville, I use to go to church with  Biologist who use to teach  at the University of Tennessee.  He has probably retired, and dogmatically rejects evolution.

Love, peace, joy

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Thanks for confirming that you don't have a clue about what constitutes verifiable evidence. 

Wise cited numerous research papers documenting his claims.   Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" means in English?

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I will answer the last 2 requirements.  Nothing they said was witnessed

All of these findings have been repeatedly verified by new fossil evidence.   No point in denying the fact.    It's not just one case, it's many, many cases.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If it can't be repeated, it can't be true.

So since we can't witness your great,great-grandparents  being married,  and there's no witnesses  to the event, we much conclude that they never married?   I don't think you've thought this through very well.

Everyone sees through dodges like that.  C'mon.

 

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Wise cited numerous research papers documenting his claims. 

Then post them so they can b e checked.  You saying he did something that is true is meaningless

  Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" means in English?

Perhaps but since you post OPINIONS as evidence, it is more likely you don;'t understand what the word means.

All of these findings have been repeatedly verified by new fossil evidence.   No point in denying the fact.    It's not just one case, it's many, many cases.

No they haven't.  That is just another thing you have made up and can't support and can't give even one verifiable  example.    No  point  in denying that.

So since we can't witness your great,great-grandparents  being married,  and there's no witnesses  to the event, we much conclude that they never married?   I don't think you've thought this through very well. 

Not at all.  Some relatives can support their marriage and death.

Everyone sees through dodges like that.  C'mon.

It is not a dodge.  You just can't understand it.

Love, peace joy

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Wise cited numerous research papers documenting his claims. 

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Then post them so they can b e checked.  You saying he did something that is true is meaningless

I linked you to them.   He cited them in his report.   Didn't you read it?

Barbarian suggests:

Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" means in English?

4 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Perhaps but since you post OPINIONS as evidence,

Citations from research literature are evidence, not opinions.

All of these findings have been repeatedly verified by new fossil evidence.   No point in denying the fact.    It's not just one case, it's many, many cases.

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

No they haven't.

Yes, they have.   As you would have learned, if you had checked the links, the research results are all cited by Dr. Wise.   No point in denying the fact.

(denial that we can know anything we haven't witnessed)

So since we can't witness your great,great-grandparents  being married,  and there's no witnesses  to the event, we much conclude that they never married?   I don't think you've thought this through very well. 

6 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Some relatives can support their marriage and death.

You have witnesses who can attest that they witnessed the marriage of your great,great-grandparent?   C'mon.   By your standards of evidence, we must conclude it never happened.

(For anyone who cares, Wise cited research papers 82 times in his paper, documenting the research and the journals involved.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

 

[omega2xx]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Wise cited numerous research papers documenting his claims. 

I linked you to them.   He cited them in his report.   Didn't you read it?

Barbarian suggests:

Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" means in English?

Citations from research literature are evidence, not opinions.

All of these findings have been repeatedly verified by new fossil evidence.   No point in denying the fact.    It's not just one case, it's many, many cases.

Yes, they have.   As you would have learned, if you had checked the links, the research results are all cited by Dr. Wise.   No point in denying the fact.

(denial that we can know anything we haven't witnessed)

So since we can't witness your great,great-grandparents  being married,  and there's no witnesses  to the event, we much conclude that they never married?   I don't think you've thought this through very well. 

You have witnesses who can attest that they witnessed the marriage of your great,great-grandparent?   C'mon.   By your standards of evidence, we must conclude it never happened.

(For anyone who cares, Wise cited research papers 82 times in his paper, documenting the research and the journals involved.)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

YAWN

love. peace joy

 

[Paul James]

On 8/28/2019 at 10:24 PM, Who me said:

The logical deduction is that the biblical account is a true and accurate historical record.

What you have significantly failed to show is that you have not been significantly influenced by evolutionary thought or that you don't value atheistic scientific ideas above what the bible says.

 

True.  If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the rest of the Bible, including the gospel, and the death of Christ on the cross, is meaningless.

[one.opinion]

On 4/30/2020 at 1:50 AM, Paul James said:

True.  If Genesis 1-3 is not literal history, then the rest of the Bible, including the gospel, and the death of Christ on the cross, is meaningless.

There is no reason to claim that Genesis 1-3 must be literal history for the rest of the Bible to be literal history. God is creator, God made mankind special, mankind chose sin, God (in His grace) put in place a plan to redeem those that accept His gift. That is the important message, not the timeline of His creation.

[Paul James]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is no reason to claim that Genesis 1-3 must be literal history for the rest of the Bible to be literal history. God is creator, God made mankind special, mankind chose sin, God (in His grace) put in place a plan to redeem those that accept His gift. That is the important message, not the timeline of His creation.

God was there when He created the world, and He personally gave Moses the information to have a written record of how He did it.   Right up to the 19th Century, no one doubted the literal history of Genesis - until the devil inspired liberal theologians to ask, "Did God really say it?"  merely repeating what Satan said to Eve in the garden: "Has God said?"

The real reason why evolution became popular is that the liberal theologians did not want to include the God of the Bible in the creation, because if they did, they would have to account to Him one day for the way they lived, and because they knew that their personal morals left a lot to be desired they dreamed up a God whom they felt comfortable with.  Therefore liberal evolutionary theologians have a different meaning for God, Christ, faith, etc., to who the God of the Bible really is.  Their "Christ of faith" is not the historical Jesus of the Bible, and their "faith" is existential "faith in faith" (if I believe it, then it is true for me).

There are those who discount a literal view of Genesis will say, "That is just your interpretation".   That comes from an 18th Century "enlightened" atheistic philosopher who taught that truth is no longer objective but subjective.  So, instead of saying that something is true because it is true, they say that something is true if we believe it is true for us.  So, a person following that godless philosophy will say, "You may believe that Genesis 1-3 is true for you, and that is your interpretation, but that doesn't have to be my interpretation".  So a godless philosopher will say, just as Satan said to Eve in the garden, "God didn't really mean to say it literally - He really meant something else, and I'll give you my interpretation of what He said."