God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

On 11/27/2019 at 8:21 AM, one.opinion said:

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.

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".

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".

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?

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.

 

How do you determine if a passage is literal  or figurative?

Is "after their kind" literal or figurative?  Whatever you choose, can you support it scientifically?

 

 

[omega2xx]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That's cute and funny :-) Chime in with evidence, if you'd like.

After the kind for birds, fish, cattle, beasts, and man.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Is "after their kind" literal or figurative?

Quite literal. All progeny bear a strong physical resemblance and even stronger genetic resemblance to their parents. What is missing from your viewpoint is anything, either explicit or implied, in the Bible that states that kinds are immutable and static. Progeny can change just a tiny bit each generation, with the potential for populations to diverge from the rest of a species.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

[omega2xx]

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Quite literal. All progeny bear a strong physical resemblance and even stronger genetic resemblance to their parents. What is missing from your viewpoint is anything, either explicit or implied, in the Bible that states that kinds are immutable and static. Progeny can change just a tiny bit each generation, with the potential for populations to diverge from the rest of a species.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving!

Since it is  literal, it refutes evolution.  All progeny bear the exact species of it parents.  Traits vary because of dominant and recessive genes and mutations, but the species(kind) never changes.  The Bible doesn't say kinds re immutable and static, because "after their kind" makes each species immutable and static if the concept is properly understood.  If the species were not  immutable and  static, God would have told us.  Then you would have something to hang you evolution hat on.

Progeny  traits do change every generation, but the species never changes because genetics will not allow it.

Populations can't diverge from its species because genetics will not allow it and that would make the literal after their kind false.

For a species to change, the offspring must get a trait that is not in the gene pool of its parents.  There is no known mechanism for that to happen.

Evolution has put all of its eggs in the "common descent" basket, but the truth is, you have no idea what the first life form was or how it came into being.

If if their guess was right, there in no genetic way a single cell, could h ave all of her genes necessary to evolve into the thousands of species we have today.  Also, it could not have the DNA for all of the life forms. 

Maybe the biggest jump you have to explain is how did animal life evolve from plant life?

 

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Traits vary because of dominant and recessive genes and mutations, but the species(kind) never changes.

You have been shown examples of speciation - repeatedly. But believe what you wish, there is no amount of evidence that will satisfy you.

[Alive]

Show me a body plan change.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

Show me a body plan change.

If you are truly interested in dialogue, this article might be a good place to start.

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/38/E8909

There was a tremendous amount of body plan development and change in the Cambrian period. Interestingly, much of it was achieved through regulation of expression of existing genes, rather than development of new genes:

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You have been shown examples of speciation - repeatedly. But believe what you wish, there is no amount of evidence that will satisfy you.

I don't deny speciation.  I claim that when the only difference is the inability to mate, and the species doesn't change, it is not evidence of evolution.  If the salamanders and gulls remained salamanders and gulls, where is the evolution?  Barbarian couldn't answer that question, can you.

Believe what you wish, but what you have presented as evidence is only opinions, which prove nothing.

Did you forget to post the Hebrew words that indicate the flood was not global?

Yesterday as I was finishing my response to you, I got interrupted and did not get the chance to thank you for wishing me a happy Thanksgiving and wishing you the same.

I hope you had a very happy thanksgiving.

Love, peace and joy.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by omega2xx

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If the salamanders and gulls remained salamanders and gulls, where is the evolution?

I still need to see the examples and do some reading before I can offer a reasonable response.

6 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Believe what you wish, but what you have presented as evidence is only opinions, which prove nothing.

There was evidence provided. You asked for it, I provided a link with some evidence, and you chose not to look at it. It is beyond my power to force you to read things.

8 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Did you forget to post the Hebrew words that indicate the flood was not global?

No, I cannot prove the word usage refers to a regional flood any more than you can prove the word usage refers to a global flood. I have offered reasons why I believe the word usage refers to a regional flood.

11 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Yesterday as I was finishing my response to you, I got interrupted and did not get the chance to thank you for wishing me a happy Thanksgiving and wishing you the same.

Of course! And thank you, we are brothers through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, after all!

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I still need to see the examples and do some reading before I can offer a reasonable response.

There was evidence provided. You asked for it, I provided a link with some evidence, and you chose not to look at it. It is beyond my power to force you to read things.

No, I cannot prove the word usage refers to a regional flood any more than you can prove the word usage refers to a global flood. I have offered reasons why I believe the word usage refers to a regional flood.

Of course! And thank you, we are brothers through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, after all!

It is to much to cut and paste.  Google "salamander speciation" and I think you will get some hits.  I think the one I read was from a university in California.

The reason I no longer read links is because they never really provide any verifiable evidence.  They do he same things the evolutionists do---they make a statement and expect everyone to accept it as evidence.  It would be a simple thing to cut and paste what a link offers as evidence.  IMO, you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

You said there were Hebrew words that indicated the flood was not global.  If you have a link on that I will read it.

I have offered reason why I believe the word usage  refers to a regional flood. 

We are brothers through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.  At least you have the important truth right.

Love, peace, joy