God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

You said something yesterday that caught my eye, but I haven't followed up on yet.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I don't deny speciation. 

Earlier in this thread, you were making the argument that speciation didn't make new species. Are you truly admitting that speciation is a process that has taken place in the past and we can still see occurring today? I have been trying real hard in this thread to present evidence for this, and it looked from that short phrase that you now accept it.

Help me understand your position better. The gull and salamander examples you've referred to probably describe the development of new species, but do not show major changes in physical features like body form, etc. So your position may be that speciation occurs, but we have not observed any major changes in form or function. Does that summarize your thoughts adequately?

 

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

IMO, you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

I know you doubt this. I can only assure you that I do. I would not have been able to earn a PhD degree in Biology without this ability.

11 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

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

Alright, I have seen several, but I've posted this one at Worthy before: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_666.cfm

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You said something yesterday that caught my eye, but I haven't followed up on yet.

Earlier in this thread, you were making the argument that speciation didn't make new species. Are you truly admitting that speciation is a process that has taken place in the past and we can still see occurring today? I have been trying real hard in this thread to present evidence for this, and it looked from that short phrase that you now accept it."

Speciation  is not a process.  It is the natural results  of to much interbreeding.  I have always accepted that speciaion is real.  I have always rejected it results in a new species.  Teh inability o breed, doe no make a new species.

"Help me understand your position better. The gull and salamander examples you've referred to probably describe the development of new species, but do not show major changes in physical features like body form, etc. So your position may be that speciation occurs, but we have not observed any major changes in form or function. Does that summarize your thoughts adequately?"

Basically that summarizes my position.  A salamander remaining a salamander does not support evolution.   To support evolutin the salamander must become something other than a salamander.

"I know you doubt this. I can only assure you that I do. I would not have been able to earn a PhD degree in Biology without this ability."

Don't take this as questioning your ability, but all evolutionists have been indoctrinated in  only one line of thinking since about the 5th grade---evolution is a proven fact.  If you would have verified one degree off of that line, you would not have received a PhD.

"Alright, I have seen several, but I've posted this one at Worthy before: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_666.cfm"

I read through your link and for the most part the author was overly vague in most of his comments.  Also he is dead wrong ab out the word used in Ps 24:1.  The word there is eres, same as in Gen 1:1, not tetel.  Eres is used about 98 % of the time in the Bible for earth, which can also mean "land."  It can mean a location, but it is not limited to that.  Gen 1:1 includes all of the earth. 

Whether it was local or global does not change any doctrine  of Christianity.  No one is saved or not saved by getting the flood account wrong. 

 

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Speciation  is not a process.

No, it is a process. It can occasionally occur from one generation to the next, as when a genome duplication takes place. However, most of the time, speciation occurs as one segment of a population slowly diverges from another until they can no longer interbreed.

16 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I have always accepted that speciaion is real.  I have always rejected it results in a new species.

Yes, speciation is real, and speciation results in new species. That is like saying evaporation doesn't mean anything evaporated.

16 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Basically that summarizes my position.  A salamander remaining a salamander does not support evolution. 

Speciation does not immediately change change body form or result in obvious morphological difference. No scientist argues that this is the case. Slow changes over very long periods of time are presumed to make such changes. That's why the fossil record is so important. The fossil record shows us what life forms were on the planet at different times. Occasionally, we even have fossil transitions like the whale series (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, finally modern cetaceans) or Archaeopteryx, or the snake fossil with a pelvic girdle and hind limbs, that I linked earlier in the thread. Yes, these involved interpretation and were not directly observed (what you would consider verifiable evidence), but when the fossil record seems to indicated the same thing repeatedly, it is a reasonable conclusion that is what really happened.

When the fossil record is corroborated by biogeography, genetics, anatomy, and other scientific disciplines, each piece of evidence further supports the theory.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

all evolutionists have been indoctrinated in  only one line of thinking since about the 5th grade---evolution is a proven fact.

This is not true. I went through the first 20 or so years of my life indoctrinated into a YEC worldview. I was barely introduced to any evidence for evolution until I began studying biology in college. I began to see evidence I was never allowed to see that supported evolution, and began to see that the "evidence" for young earth creation that I had been taught was often twisted or just plain wrong (such as "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution!").

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If you would have verified one degree off of that line, you would not have received a PhD.

This is also not true. My PhD work was on a project that studied a particular insect virus. An acceptance of young earth creation would not have made a difference to my PI (principle investigator) or the other members of my dissertation committee. My PI grew up Hindu, and although he had left that religion, he had a great deal of respect for the religious beliefs of the people working in his lab.

17 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Whether it was local or global does not change any doctrine  of Christianity.  No one is saved or not saved by getting the flood account wrong.

I agree with you 100% here. This is why I'm perplexed (and irritated, I should probably admit) by other individuals (not you) that have the attitude that one must accept a global flood to be true to the Word of God.

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Don't take this as questioning your ability, but all evolutionists have been indoctrinated in  only one line of thinking since about the 5th grade---evolution is a proven fact.  If you would have verified one degree off of that line, you would not have received a PhD.

Demonstrably wrong.    Stephen Gould was willing to accept a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate.   So there is that.   Gerald Aardsma, for example, is a very competent PhD who happens to be a YE creationist.  Kurt Wise is a PhD. paleontologist who is a YE creationist.   Dr. Harold Coffin is another, primarily a geologist.     Dr. Todd Wood is a biologist and biochemist.  

I took my first course in immunology from a gentleman who was a PhD bacteriologist, and a YE creationist.   You've been very, very badly misled about this issue.

 

 

[Alive]

There are few things on this earth as myopic as an educated scientist.

They are so sure until they are no longer so sure and then they become so sure once again.

Rinse and repeat.

This reflects the history of the scientific community.

[The Barbarian]

Quote

 

The reason science has such a high reputation for getting things right is simple:  it works.

If it didn't work, you couldn't get scientists to use it, no matter how hard you might try.    Because it works, they'll use it no matter who objects.    Darwin's predictions, for example, have been repeatedly confirmed by new evidence, which is how hypotheses become settled theories.   Although we've learned much more about biology and evolution since Darwin, his four points remain solid as they ever were.   Some other things, he had wrong, which is reflected in today's Darwinian theory, which is more solid than it has ever been.

This reflects the history of the scientific community; we see the same for other phenomena like gravity, plate tectonics, chemical reactions, and so on.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

The pragmatic and trial-and-error methods of science may seem pretty slipshod to some, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding our physical universe.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

There are few things on this earth as myopic as an educated scientist.

Would you like to support your assertion, or do you just like making baseless accusations?

[The Barbarian]

56 minutes ago, Alive said:

There are few things on this earth as myopic as an educated scientist.

They are so sure until they are no longer so sure and then they become so sure once again.

The reason science has such a high reputation for getting things right is simple:  it works.

If it didn't work, you couldn't get scientists to use it, no matter how hard you might try.    Because it works, they'll use it no matter who objects.    Darwin's predictions, for example, have been repeatedly confirmed by new evidence, which is how hypotheses become settled theories.   Although we've learned much more about biology and evolution since Darwin, his four points remain solid as they ever were.   Some other things, he had wrong, which is reflected in today's Darwinian theory, which is more solid than it has ever been.

This reflects the history of the scientific community; we see the same for other phenomena like gravity, plate tectonics, chemical reactions, and so on.

[Alive]

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Would you like to support your assertion, or do you just like making baseless accusations?

Human nature and environmental exposure.