God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Whatever floats your boat.

Likewise, if it “floats your boat” to ignore factual information that has been repeatedly shown to you, go for it. Keep denying basic facts and tell yourself you know more than thousands of experts in the field - have fun with that.

Let me remind you of one thing - scientists at ICR and AiG are not young earth creationists despite scientific evidence, not because of it.

[omega2xx]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

How do you define "after their kind" and why do you define it that way?

Asking for a definition of "kind" is the usual strawman of evolutionists. "After their kid " is so simple even a cave man with a low IQ can understand it.  Evolutionists always try to confuse the issue with that question, because they just don't want it to be true  and upset the evolution apple cart.

I define that way because that is the way God uses it.  We know that because it is proved thousands  of times every day.

Does the Bible indicate anywhere that kinds cannot change over time?

This is another strawman.  If it did, it would contradiction "after the kind" and make an error in God' inspired and inerrant word.

 

 

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is another one of these arguments that relies on human inference rather than what is actually written.

Actually what you are accusing others of doing is exactly what you are doing.  What is actually written is "after their kind for all major God created species.species.  There is NOTHING written indicting there will ever be a change in "after their kind. "  IMO it is far more honoring to God to accept what He says  instead of what Darwin and his evangelists say.

 

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Progeny of course are the same kinds as their parents, but slight differences over long periods of time (and as we have seen, large changes in short periods of time) can change a sub-population into an entirely new species.

This is what you and the other evolutionist ALWAYS do---make a dogmatic statement and offer no verifiable evidence.  In fact you try and push the actual change of species way into the future where it can't be seen, and you have no examples of it happening in a short period of time., and accuse me of thinking it can happen in one generation. However the main thing you always omit is the science that makes it possible, and I have shown you why mutations can't do it.

There is nothing about the theory of evolution that is falsified by direct observation.

That is not the problem of evolution.  You have to rely on things that can be falsified or at least not proved:  Mutation, natural selection, the fossil record.  You can't explain how the leg of a land animals, pakicetus, eventually became the fin of a whale.

 and how its nose became a blowhole.

Did you look at the link I sent you? If not, I'll post it here again so hopefully, you will actually look at the evidence.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Please read it. You will see the evidence how a single mutation event, a genome duplication, can lead to the formation of new species (the goatsbeards). You can also find evidence for other speciation events there. Species change a little at first, and this is directly observable. The large-scale changes that differentiate the species frequently take much longer.

I will read it if you will tell me how salamanders and gulls, remaining salamanders and gulls  is evidence of evolution.  If not, forget it.

Our abilities to sequence genomes (over the last 20 year) has added a tremendous amount of evidence in favor of evolution. This definitely was a big change.

Here you go again, making a dogmatic stagtement and offer no supporting evidence. 

 

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Show me the study that describes these examples. Then we can discuss them in more detail.

goggle salamander speciation and you will get some hits you can look at.

Friend, I've not only looked at the other side, I've been on the other side. I started my education as a firm young earth creationist. The evidence led me to believe that how I once interpreted the Bible was inconsistent with what God has made evident in His creation.

I have been on both sides also and when I look At the other side, it was far more scientific, but mainly it reinforces what God says, which needs no interpretation.  What God has made consistent is "after their kind."

 

[omega2xx]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Already have.  You just don't want to face it:

What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution.

And I explained to you that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a  population over time.   So if the next generation of salamanders has a different allele distribution than the old generation, that, by definition, is evolution.

You don't have to respond if you would prefer not to.  We will understand.

You keep avoiding the question.  Evidently the change in allele frequency did not cause the salamander to evolve into something  other than a salamander.  That indicates your belief that the change  in the allele frequency  is  a mechanism for a change of species false.

 

 

You keep avoiding the question.  A

[one.opinion]

17 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Asking for a definition of "kind" is the usual strawman of evolutionists.

No, the meaning of "kind" is important, and not a strawman (look up strawman, your perception of this isn't accurate). You cannot explain what a "kind" is based on the Bible because the Bible does not say what a "kind" is.

20 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I define that way because that is the way God uses it.

Then it should be a reasonable request to show from the Bible what it is. Go ahead, give it a shot.

21 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If it did, it would contradiction "after the kind" and make an error in God' inspired and inerrant word.

Consider the possibility that a "kind" isn't what you have assumed.

 

22 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

There is NOTHING written indicting there will ever be a change in "after their kind. "

Organisms change over time. Period. ICR scientists know this. AiG scientists know this. The Bible doesn't say it doesn't happen. You have exactly zero support from the Bible and zero support from the natural world that organisms cannot change.

24 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

This is what you and the other evolutionist ALWAYS do---make a dogmatic statement and offer no verifiable evidence.

Evidence was provided. I gave you a link, twice, and you refuse to look at it.

26 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

In fact you try and push the actual change of species way into the future where it can't be seen, and you have no examples of it happening in a short period of time., and accuse me of thinking it can happen in one generation.

Read the link. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Major changes in characteristics take time. Speciation can occur in a single generation, but the species will still look the same, even if the two new species can no longer interbreed.

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I will read it if you will tell me how salamanders and gulls, remaining salamanders and gulls  is evidence of evolution.  If not, forget it.

Show me the studies. "Google it" is not a sufficient response. You repeatedly demand evidence, and haven't produced a single bit to support your own assertions.

29 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

That is not the problem of evolution.  You have to rely on things that can be falsified or at least not proved:  Mutation, natural selection, the fossil record.  You can't explain how the leg of a land animals, pakicetus, eventually became the fin of a whale.

 and how its nose became a blowhole.

Please read this link - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Read it, study it, check out the claims and the evidence, then let's talk about it some more. I'm not going to devote a lot of time to searching if you won't even read a basic overview.

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I will read it if you will tell me how salamanders and gulls, remaining salamanders and gulls  is evidence of evolution.  If not, forget it.

You demand evidence, but won't look at it when it is provided. This is not a good way to conduct a fair conversation.

I'm willing to keep this conversation going, but you have to start discussing fairly.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution.

And I explained to you that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a  population over time.   So if the next generation of salamanders has a different allele distribution than the old generation, that, by definition, is evolution.

You don't have to respond if you would prefer not to.  We will understand.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You keep avoiding the question. 

See above.   I keep answering the question.    Would you like to see it again?

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Evidently the change in allele frequency did not cause the salamander to evolve into something  other than a salamander.

Right.   Just as a change in allele frequencies did not cause our ancestors to evolve into something other than a hominid.   We are just the last surviving kind of hominid.  If all the different species of salamander died out, and only one species survived, that would be the same thing.    But as you learned, speciation is always caused by a change in alleles.   Would you like to see the evidence for that, again?

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

That indicates your belief that the change  in the allele frequency  is  a mechanism for a change of species false.

Nope.  You're still struggling with this because you don't get the genetics behind it.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That is not the problem of evolution.  You have to rely on things that can be falsified or at least not proved:  Mutation, natural selection, the fossil record.  You can't explain how the leg of a land animals, pakicetus, eventually became the fin of a whale.

 and how its nose became a blowhole.

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, the meaning of "kind" is important, and not a strawman (look up strawman, your perception of this isn't accurate). You cannot explain what a "kind" is based on the Bible because the Bible does not say what a "kind" is.

Of course kind  it is important.  The strawman is asking to define something that is obvious by it being proved thousands of times every day.  You want it defined to fit your view to help support your evolutionary opinions.

Then it should be a reasonable request to show from the Bible what it is. Go ahead, give it a shot.

Many Hebrew words are hard to define exactly.  One thing it doesn't mean is "different." Kind(min)is one of them. When this is the case the best understanding is to look at what happens when put in context.  What has happened since life bean?  Every life form has ALWAYS reproduced  exactly what its source was, and no one has ever seen or reproduced a life form not the exact same likeness as its source. God said, "let us create man in our image and likeness."  To clarify those therms, image refers to man's invisible attributes(intellect, compassion, humor etc).  Likeness refers to man's visible attributes(arms, legs etc).  When God appears as man(Jesus) what did he look like?  Human beings.  That has never changed since the first man.

Consider the possibility that a "kind" isn't what you have assumed.

Consider the possibility that "kind" is what I have assumed, and I have just presented a better explanation than you can to show I am wrong. 

Organisms change over time. Period.

As a biologist you should know that the offspring can only receive a trait that is in the gene pool of its parents.  Genes can only change eye color, hair color, skin color etc.  THEY CAN'T CHANGE the species of the parentgs

ICR scientists know this.

Not only do they not know it, they completely reject it.  Let's keep this discussion honest.

AiG scientists know this.

Not only do they not know it, hey completely reject it.  Let's keep this discussion honest.

The Bible doesn't say it doesn't happen.  This is your second strawman.  The Bible also doensn't say it does happen and if it did and was important God would tell us.

You have exactly zero support from the Bible and zero support from the natural world that organisms cannot change.

This is not about the Bible, it is about science.  However "after their kind" refutes evolution.  You have no support from the Bible or from the naurtal world that organisms can become something its parents were not.

Evidence was provided. I gave you a link, twice, and you refuse to look at it.

Read the link. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Major changes in characteristics take time. Speciation can occur in a single generation, but the species will still look the same, even if the two new species can no longer interbreed.

Show me the studies. "Google it" is not a sufficient response. You repeatedly demand evidence, and haven't produced a single bit to support your own assertions.

Please read this link - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Read it, study it, check out the claims and the evidence, then let's talk about it some more. I'm not going to devote a lot of time to searching if you won't even read a basic overview.

You demand evidence, but won't look at it when it is provided. This is not a good way to conduct a fair conversation.

I'm willing to keep this conversation going, but you have to start discussing fairly.

I'm not.  We have a difference of  opinion on what constitutes evidence and it isn't going to change for either of us.

FYI, I did  not start participating in the discussion thinking I would change you or Barbarian or any other evolutionist's mind.  I got into it to show some who have not make up their mind yet which is right, especially any Christians, that there is more evidence supporting the Bible's version than the Darwin version.

Love peace and joy

 

[omega2xx]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

Pictures are not evidence. 

[one.opinion]

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

As a biologist you should know that the offspring can only receive a trait that is in the gene pool of its parents.

Nope. As a biologist, I am telling you differently. There are several important factors that can lead to variation in the genome between parents and progeny. I'll pick an easy one to demonstrate. If a mutation (a change in DNA content) occurs in a germ line cell (cells making eggs or sperm), then progeny can have different DNA from the parent.

My quote: "Organisms change over time. Period. ICR scientists know this. AiG scientists know this. The Bible doesn't say it doesn't happen. You have exactly zero support from the Bible and zero support from the natural world that organisms cannot change."

Your response:

25 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not only do they not know it, they completely reject it.  Let's keep this discussion honest.

They don't reject it, they admit it. Remember the direct quotes I provided you from both ICR and AiG on natural selection? Here they are, although you will likely just ignore them again.

Quote

The article played on the false notion that creation scientists do not accept natural selection when it stated, “Creationism . . . rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.” Creationists do accept natural selection in principle, but maintain it has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Here is a link to the full text article - https://www.icr.org/article/tempest-dog-dish

Quote

From a creationist perspective natural selection is a process whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective of their genetic makeup) survive better than others in a given environment or under a given selective pressure (i.e., antibiotic resistance in bacteria).

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

Organisms change.

If you cannot even accept what creation scientists believe when provided with direct quotes, I'm afraid there is no way I can adequately explain what mainstream scientists believe and I am doing nothing but wasting my time.

Peace and joy to you, as well.

- signing off this conversation

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Pictures are not evidence. 

As you now realize, they show the gradual evolution of the blowhole from nostrils.   It's why all the same tissues, nerves, bones, etc. are associated with both of them.