God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Evolution is rubbish inspired by Satan.

It's just an observed phenomenon. Remember what evolution is: "change in allele frequency in a population over time.  Or less precisely "descent with modification."  This is what we observe.

10 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Cars did not design themselves or build themselves, neither do the robots who riveted them together.

Yes.   Humans aren't nearly as capable as God is.   We may someday produce devices that evolve, but we can't now, and we may never be able to do so.   But then that's the difference between a limited designer and an omnipotent Creator.

You seem to have undercut your own beliefs.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:

 

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. "

Charles Darwin

And a creationist website admits:

In context, Darwin maintains that the evolution of the complex eye is possible (although highly improbable) if science later establishes numerous, connected gradations from simple to complex in the fossil record. Read this section of Darwin’s theory for yourself and see where you land on the issue. Has the fossil record made the case? With our current understanding of the codependent complexity of the human eye, optic nerve, and visual cortex, is it really possible for the optic nub on the end of an earth worm to become the human eye?

https://www.allaboutscience.org/darwin-and-evolution-of-the-eye-faq.htm

We can do better than that.   We can find all those fine graduations of eye complexity in living organisms.   The complete series is known in a number of phyla:

You've tossed out a lot of old objections that have been easily debunked over the years.   Would you like to pick the next one for me to dispose of, or should I just choose for myself?

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Origin of life:

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.  It assumes life began somehow, and describes how it evolves.   If God had magically poofed the first living things into existence, rather than have the earth produce them, evolutionary theory wouldn't be affected at all.

Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.   Would you like me to show you that?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, zero transitional fossils have been found of the millions of fossils collected.

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, disagrees with 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.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise  Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms  (my emphasis)

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Thermodynamics 2nd law:
This law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to “worn out.” We see this principle in our everyday lives. Energy, applied with intelligence, is necessary to reverse the ever-increasing entropy or randomness of creation.

If you were correct, then trees could not grow from seeds, babies could not grow to be adults, hurricanes could not form in tropical seas, and so on. So long as the sun shines, entropy in the biosphere will continue to be decreased by the input of energy.   This is a particularly silly objection; I'm surprised anyone tries it, these days.

 

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Evidence for Evolution - Homology:
(ex) Many animals have similar bone structures, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Thought to have been evidence for common ancestry until significant advancements were made in biochemistry. Simply put, "Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship." (Dr. Walt Brown, "In the Beginning," 2001, p. 290.)

Here, you've confused homology with analogous organs.    Homologies are different structures using the same parts.   The fins of whales, wings of bats, legs of horses, and arms of primates are all homologous, with the same anatomical features evolved to different uses.   Genetics has shown these to develop from the same genes, with some modifications.

On the other hand, wolves and thylacines strongly resemble each other, but when you look at the anatomical details, you find one is a marsupial, and one is a placental carnivore.  The superficial resemblance is analogy.

Again, this objection is easily debunked by evidence.

If you'd like to pick another from that list I'd be pleased to debunk it for you.    Or I can just go down the list and pick them off one at a time.    Your choice.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, HAZARD said:

• Did Charles Darwin express any doubts concerning his theory on evolution?

The most notable one, Darwin never did find an adequate answer for.    The problem was that if inheritance is in the blood (as everyone thought at the time), then a new trait would be overcome like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.   Darwin admitted that this was a problem he could not explain, merely arguing that the evidence showed evolution to have happened.

Then, when Mendel's work was discovered, it became clear that it was like sorting beads, not mixing paint,and the problem went away.

[The Barbarian]

15 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Evidence for Evolution - Where is it?

It's observed daily.   Remember what evolution is. "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Sometimes people distinguish between microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (the evolution of new species).    Both have been observed.   Most creationist oranizations admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms.   Some as far as new orders of living things.  They just say it's not "real evolution."

 

 

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Here are some key words you use that set off warning bells and help us discern you by the Holy Spirit.

I had hoped you would be willing to have an honest, fair discussion, but it appears my hopes will not be realized. Instead of addressing a discussion, you choose to focus on word choice. I will address what you have written to this point, but cannot guarantee that I will find further discussion worth my time.

6 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

Evolutionary Creation

Yes, Dr. Francis Collins, who served as director for the Human Genome project and is currently head of the National Institutes of Health, is an outspoken Christian and preferred "Evolutionary Creation" over "Theistic Evolution" because he believe the noun to be more important than the adjective. It is simply close-minded to view such a term and determine that it sets off a "warning bell".

7 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

"higher power,"

This is not my term, but was a category in the Pew Research poll. You had to be actively searching for things to find offensive for this to once set off a "warning bell".

7 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

how to interpret the creation account of Genesis...

I can't even begin to guess why this set off "warning bells" for you. We interpret every bit of scripture. Why should the creation account of Genesis be any different?

7 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

We are talking about God's direct literal living Word discerned and revealed by the Holy Spirit residing within

Unless you believe that the earth is flat, and that the sky is a solid dome supported by physical pillars, and the sun orbits the earth, then you have also found that scientific evidence shows us that certain passages of God's Holy Word are not intended to be interpreted in such a literal fashion. We may disagree about Genesis 1-3, but that does not make me any less of a Bible-believing follower of Christ than you.

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Jonathan BeWell said:

You will have to explain yourself on this one, Groo, your crack team just has their perception skewed by dirty broken glasses.

This quote was from YEC scientist, Dr. Kurt Wise, not "Groo". Your attempt at mockery is not only unsuitable for reasonable dialogue, but is completely misplaced.