God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Sure it does.  There is a single gene for whale fins, a different one for shark fins and a single, different gene for each SPECIES  of fish.  If that is not true a whale might end up with a shark fin and could not live.

This is absolutely incorrect. Either admit error or show me what the "fin gene" is.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Genes do not interact with each other.

It would have been more accurate of me to state that "gene products" interact with each other. Additionally, the gene products often interact with other genes. A blanket statement that they "do not interact with each other" displays a profound lack of familiarity with molecular biology.

This is a schematic of gene interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the same single-celled yeast used in brewing and baking.

http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=933

A caption for this figure reads as follows:

Quote

This visualization depicts the genetic interaction network of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here, each node represents a gene, which are connected to each other if they have similar patterns of genetic interactions, which signals that the genes are functionally related. The network here self-assembles such that genes are positioned relative to each other based on their functional similarity. The visualization therefore encompasses a functional 'map' of cell behavior.

Interaction networks in multicellular eukaryotes like humans are much more complex.

You basically have no idea what you are arguing about. You are simply making false claims like "speciation does not make new species" and "genes do not interact" without even a shred of evidence to back up your arguments. Yet you expect others to spoon-feed you evidence and explanations and reject them when they are offered.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Brain surgery is based on the SCIENCE of the past.  It has been PROVED.  That is the difference between science and evolution.

I eagerly anticipate all of the evidence you have that disproves evolution and all of the evidence you have that supports a 6,000-10,000 year old creation. 

[one.opinion]

59 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I responded, so you can go back and check it out, including the Hebrew, for which you did not respond.

This is what you wrote:

This was my response:

Quote

 

3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land

The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah.

If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood.
 

Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11,12,17).

The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth.

4.Hebrews Had Better Word For Entire Earth

When the Hebrews wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they used the word tetel, as in Psalm 24:1.
 

The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).
 

This word is not found in the Genesis Flood account - another indication that the entire earth is not in view.

Not As Clear As It Seems

Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood.

 

You did not address the Biblical word usage at all, just went to defend yourself after your accusation of "that's a lie" was shown to be false.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

As to the "scientific proof" outside the word of God of "Adam and Eve" is another fallacy. Scientists chose the names "Mitochondrial Eve" (lived 150,000 years ago - 100% contrary to the word of God) and "Y-chromosomal Adam" who lived 300,000 years ago, again another 100% opposed to the word of God. So if this is what you mean, well, I guess Adam had to live 150,000 until Eve was "born"? Hmm... again 100% against the word of God. Adam was 130 years old when he has Seth after having Cain and Able.

I don't know why you are bringing this up, because it doesn't address the post you are responding to.

Quote

When God was done, He said, "it is very good,"

True.

Quote

and evilution says there had to be mutations and death to evolve

Yes, physical death is a part of physical life. Can you show from the Bible why a creation that is "very good" could not include mutation and/or death? Can you show from the Bible that nothing died before Adam introduced sin into the world? The actual text in Genesis (and Romans) seems to refer to spiritual death as a result of sin and not physical death. Remember that God said that Adam would die on the day if he ate the forbidden fruit, and Adam obviously did not physically die, although his spiritual death was evident.

Quote

To believe evilution is to call God a liar

Once again, you are making a false statement. For someone that is so fixated on lies, the number of false statements you make is shocking.

Quote

that "it was very good" to include death as good, it's that simple.

Are you presuming to tell God what should and should not count as "very good"? You are reading interpretations into the Bible that are not there and then assuming it is a "lie" to interpret a passage differently from you.

Quote

So no real Adam and Eve to sin

I have previously contradicted this false statement, but it looks like I need to do it again. I do not claim there was no real Adam and Eve. I would estimate that there are millions of Christians that also believe in a real Adam and a real Eve, yet believe there was death before their sin.

Quote

Moreover, the word of God says He took Adam's rib and created Eve.

As with eretz related to the flood, there is disagreement about word usage here. The Ancient Hebrew word tsela is found many other places in the Bible, but is translated as rib just this once. Many Biblical scholars believe, among other things, that the word may simply be translated as life. To me, this would suggest a creation at a spiritual, rather than physical level.

 

Quote

Furthermore, there has been zero observation of the scientific method of macroevolution.

Since "macroevolution" is difficult to define, pick a definition and then we can address the evidence.

Quote

 If a mutation happened to allow a monkey to become a man, where are all the millions of observable transitions from a monkey to a man?

There is considerable fossil evidence for the evolution of hominid fossils. You can read more about the evidence here - http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

Quote

Finally, since these "scientists" cannot get around the intelligent designs in the universe, they start referring to billions of light-years instead of time years - yes, they now claim aliens seeded our planet like millions of others.

This is incoherent, but let me try to address a few things here. I completely accept that there is an ultimate Intelligent Designer for the universe. So do thousands of other scientists. Sure, there are many atheists that reject what I see as evident, but it is misleading to lump all "scientists" together.

Light years are unit of length - defined as the distance light would travel in a vacuum for one year. The fact that some parts of the universe are billions of light years distant is a good indication that the universe itself is billions of years old.

Yes, there have been scientists that have suggested that life on earth (or chemicals that would eventually lead to life on earth) arrived on the planet by meteorite, but this is not a widely-accepted hypothesis.

Quote

Mutations do not produce information; they provide chaos.

This depends on how you define information. Genetic evidence shows that duplication and divergence of genetic material is a powerful generator of new information. Duplication of a DNA segment containing a gene results in an additional copy of that gene. If the two copies of a gene are both functional, then they are redundant and can, through mutation, lead to different versions of a gene with slightly different properties in the proteins they encode. Yes, sometimes mutations break one of the gene copies, that's why genomes are littered with pseudogenes that possess many of the same properties as a functional gene, yet do not make functional proteins. But as long as a functional version of the original gene is present, these broken genes to not threaten the survival of the population.

Quote

I'll stop now in the hope you've reached this far and pondered the error of evilution.

I've pondered evolution for decades. I was raised as a young earth creationist, but a PhD education in Biology (20 years ago) showed me many errors in YEC interpretation of science and have led me to accept that God used evolution as a tool in His creation process.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Abdicate said:

By your logic, Genesis 1:1 refers to the middle east only. Absurd.

I never claimed that eretz only has a single meaning. It is you that continues to make that error.

Edited November 5, 2019 by one.opinion

[Alive]

14 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

@one.opinion By your logic, Genesis 1:1 refers to the middle east only. Absurd.

In this case, one doesn't necessarily mean the other.

Just sayin'.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Good for you, a man showed you the errors of the word of God. Enjoy.

I don't believe the Word of God contains errors, I do believe our interpretations can be in error. Would you concede that there is a difference?

7 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

You believe or disbelieve the word of God by your God-given free will.

I believe.

 

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

You said it did not apply to the globe.

This is what I said, since you can't be troubled to support your own claims:

Quote

 

Are you aware that the original Hebrew words do not specify that the flood covered the entire globe, even though there are other Hebrew words that could have done that?

So the Bible does not actually specify a global flood, and the scientific evidence for a global flood is lacking. There is NO reason why doubting a global flood should be equated with rejecting the Word of God.

 

Here is your response:

Quote

That's a lie. It does say that.

It is clearly not a lie. It is unfortunate that you do not apply standards of truth to your own words.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Shall we being with the definition of what 'is' is?

No, I was only asking for your definition of "macroevolution".

7 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

It most definitely dismisses the word of God.

I (and millions of other Christians) definitely do not dismiss the Word of God, even though we accept evolution.

[Justin Adams]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Light years are unit of length - defined as the distance light would travel in a vacuum for one year. The fact that some parts of the universe are billions of light years distant is a good indication that the universe itself is billions of years old.

This is an incongruous statement that has no coherence.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

This is an incongruous statement that has no coherence.

Try reading it in context. Then I will be happy to answer any questions you have.