God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Alive said:

I will see if I can find that white paper later.

No rush, it would just be interesting to discuss.

We can agree that God's creation is wondrous and a testament to His power and transcendence.

[Alive]

I find the following an interesting thought....

Those that are convinced that evolution is a thing, must believe that mankind is continually improving in kind or in a process of changing to a different kind.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Alive said:

Those that are convinced that evolution is a thing, must believe that mankind is continually improving in kind or in a process of changing to a different kind.

Why? Those that are convinced that evolution is a thing have seen examples of many animals (coelacanth, horseshoe crab, etc) remaining relatively unchanged for extremely long periods of time. Must humans be somehow different?

Seriously, I want to see if you agree with me on this...

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

We can agree that God's creation is wondrous and a testament to His power and transcendence.

I'm convinced of this. Are you?

[dhchristian]

41 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Who do you think "your brother" is? I don't know you, but I do believe it is safe to assume you are also a Christ-follower. Like it or not, we are brothers.

2. If you are going to pass judgement on your siblings in Christ, it might be a good idea to know what you are talking about. You don't.

HMM, sounds like a judgment on your part. A brother of mine is not one who makes outlandish claims like barbarian made, Which are so moronic as to be humorous. My Brother is also one who rejoices in the Truth of the Word of God and anyone who believes it Literally even if they themselves do not. They are not forcing their agenda down the throats of people who believe in YEC. So Yes, I have judged you as a brother and you have been found lacking. What you believe is Partial unbelief, which is lukewarmness. I choose to believe the whole counsel of God as found in his Word, and I do so despite any scientific evidence, because faith is the evidence of things not seen. I Speak from a position of KNOWING YOU, because I was once like you and held the same beliefs and had the same partial unbelief you have, therefore I am more than qualified to judge you. One Day, when you get knocked off of your podium of pride and reliance on your own understanding you will thank me for saying what I have to you, I pray that someday comes soon.

 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. (Prov. 3:11-12)

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, it probably isn't a good idea... sometimes frustrating conversations get the better of me.

Ok, please produce of that list of 10 or more young earth creation scientists that reject what Wood and Wise have to say. As you have just said:

Ok, please produce of that list of 10 or more young earth creation scientists that reject what Wood and Wise have to say. As you have just said:

Ok, please produce of that list of 10 or more young earth creation scientists that reject what Wood and Wise have to say. As you have just said:

Stephen Austin, 3 degrees in G

Kenneth Cumming ---Biology

Duane Gish --- Biochemistry.

D. Russell Humphreys ---Physics

Henry Morris --- Math and Geology

Gary Parker -- Biology

Andrew Snelling --- Geology

Larry Vardiman --- Atmospheric Physics. 

Ross Andersoon --- Biochemistry

John Bungardner --- Geophysics and Space Physics

Jerry Bergman --- 2 PhD's  in Science Education.

There is 11 and I could  list more. I only listed the area in which hey received their PhD .  I could have included what they have accomplished in heir careers, some of which are very impressive.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:

Instead of becoming angry and verbally abusive, you should consider the issue and try to present a reasonable argument.    Satan is most pleased when he can get Christians to deny the faith of their fellow Christians.

9 hours ago, dhchristian said:

No, there comes  time when mocking is used, Just like Elijah Did, You have reached that point of absurdity in your arguments here, my friend. "Modern revisions of creationism" I am still cracking up thinking about that one..... You must think we Christians are absolute idiots. Sorry, but creationism has been around since.... Let me see here, Oh yeah.... since creation. Do You see yet what a fool you are making of yourself. 

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

9 hours ago, dhchristian said:

"Modern revisions of creationism" I am still cracking up thinking about that one.....

In light of the embattled status of evolutionary theory, particularly as “intelligent design” makes headway against Darwinism in the schools and in the courts, this now classic account of the roots of creationism assumes new relevance. Expanded and updated to account for the appeal of intelligent design and the global spread of creationism, The Creationists offers a thorough, clear, and balanced overview of the arguments and figures at the heart of the debate.

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth’s antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah’s flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this “flood geology,” Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement’s tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various “creation science” think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a “peculiarly American” phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally—and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674023390

It's a very modern revision of Christian belief.   No point in denying it.   The good news is that ID has declined along with YE creationism in the 21st century.    It's a dated ideology that's lost most of its attractiveness for reasons we've covered here.

A poll shows decreasing support for Biblical creationism. What factors are causing this?

by Dr Jerry Bergman

A new Gallup poll shows, for the first time since the poll on this subject began, “a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the ‘Young Earth’ creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.” According to the poll, taken in May, the portion of the American public taking the creation position now stands at 38%. Furthermore, fifty-seven percent accept the “scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.”[ii] The poll reveals the largest factor in the shift is the jump in the number of Christians who see evolution as God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.

https://crev.info/2017/07/is-creationism-on-the-decline-if-so-why/

I think Bergman gets it wrong, though.   As more and more evidence surfaces (and possibly as creationist organizations try to change their doctrines to fit the new evidence) it becomes harder and harder for an intellectually honest person to be a traditional creationist.  

But Kramer isn’t like most science-loving Americans: He’s an evangelical Christian, a demographic group not particularly known for rejoicing over the study of human evolution. If the Homo naledi discovery had happened 15 years ago, Kramer would have had a far different reaction. He would have considered it an attempt by atheists to hijack faith with their “science-based religion.”

“I would not have seen such a discovery as beautiful,” he says now. “I would have seen it as grotesque.”

Kramer, who is 27, no longer sees things that way. Today, he accepts all evidence for the scientific process of evolution—“the whole nine yards,” he says. In fact, he says, evolutionary science has helped him understand his faith better. “Science shows us a world of order and beauty, even in the midst of darkness and disorder,” he says. “I see the light of God in this.” This view is known as theistic evolution, the belief that God is the guiding force behind evolution.

“Now, I’m able to look at this through the lens of faith and say thank God that he has allowed us to find this discovery and this process of evolution,” Kramer says. “I can rejoice in how beautiful, how important, how creative the whole thing is.”

And he is not alone. Today, more and more young evangelical Americans are seeking a new answer to an age-old question, a debate that has been raging ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species more than 150 years ago: How do you reconcile a devout faith with the science of evolution?

In some ways, Kramer is part of a larger trend. For the first time, younger Americans are more likely to accept than to reject evolution, as I reported last month in Slate. Thanks to science education, the open-mindedness and technological savvy of young people, and the decline of an older generation of creationists, America is experiencing a historic cultural shift.

https://slate.com/technology/2015/12/how-an-evangelical-creationist-came-to-accept-evolution.html

And with this, I've seen an increase in the number of creationists who realize that the question of evolution is not one that matters to one's salvation.   God will judge you on your faith and how you acted on it, not on what you thought of the way He created things.     And that's a very good trend.   We should not add doctrines or additional hurdles for people to clear in order to accept God.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

We are not going to agree on this. I understand this as that God has built into DNA/RNA and cells very specific information and that changing that information is a 'corruption'. This is the principle that guides my thinking. There is either a loss of information or a corruption of the way the information is processed. I think that 'man' the old Adam is far less than what he once was and that we continue to fade as corruption continues.

You've been misled about this.    If you studied information theory, you would know why every mutation in a population increases information.  Would you like to see the math?

 

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

There is 11 and I could  list more. I only listed the area in which hey received their PhD .  I could have included what they have accomplished in heir careers, some of which are very impressive.

 

There's a very good reason why only 4 of your examples have any expertise in biology.  But if you want to see a sample of (mostly) scientists who doubt Darwin, go here:

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdf

If you want to compare this to evolution, use this:

A list of people with a doctorate in biology or a related discipline who accept evolutionary theory.   Just the ones named "Steve" or some variation of it, like "Stephanie."

https://ncse.ngo/list-steves

It takes a bit of work, since you'll have to go through the DI's list to pick out doctorates in biology named "Steve", but it's worth it.   Last time I checked, it indicated that about three-tenths of a percent of biologists don't accept modern evolutionary theory.  

And that's kind a  revelation, isn't it?

 

 

[one.opinion]

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Stephen Austin, 3 degrees in G

Kenneth Cumming ---Biology

Duane Gish --- Biochemistry.

D. Russell Humphreys ---Physics

Henry Morris --- Math and Geology

Gary Parker -- Biology

Andrew Snelling --- Geology

Larry Vardiman --- Atmospheric Physics. 

Ross Andersoon --- Biochemistry

John Bungardner --- Geophysics and Space Physics

Jerry Bergman --- 2 PhD's  in Science Education.

This is a good start, now produced the evidence that they disagree with Wood and Wise. "Talk is cheap. Produced the evidence." You aren't the only that can play the "produced the evidence" game.

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Look at the quote again. I'll bold the pertinent part for you.

 

Yes, speciation is an acknowledged phenomenon. And speciation is the process of the development of a new species. It could not be any more clear.

 

Even though I continue to remind you, you somehow continue to forget that I have provided evidence and you refused to look at it.

It is still factual whether I take the time to show you evidence or not. I asked you to pick one of the 10 errors I found (you asked for 2-3 earlier), and I would provide evidence to show you why you are wrong. You have finally decided on one - this is good.

It might be useful to review what evolution actually is - heritable change over time. Darwin described it as "descent with modification". This means that characteristics of living organisms can change over the course of generations. This is one example - I could tell you about many others.

In 1971, biologists began an experiment in a small island chain where they moved 5 mating pairs of a certain lizard species (Podarcis sicula) to another island. The lizards were left on their own for about 30 years before the lizards were observed on the new island. Researchers first noticed that the diet had changed from a primarily insectivorous diet on the old island, to a largely herbivorous diet on the new island. This change in diet had a few major anatomical effects. First, the heads of the lizards on the new island were significantly larger in all three dimensions when compared to the same species on the old island. Additionally, the bite strength was significantly greater to allow tearing and more chewing of vegetation, and indicating altered musculature around the jaw. To the scientists' extreme surprise, the lizards on the new island also developed cecal valves that were missing from the lizards on the old island. These cecal valves were presumed to have developed due to the need to retain material in the intestines to help extract more nutrients. The insectivorous diet is much easier to extract nutrients from, so no cecal valves were needed.

All in all, this study showed several heritable changes over time, thus showing evolution does indeed take place in observable time scales - constituting verifiable evidence.

Here is what you ignored that indicates they do not accept speciation as  producing a new species.

"However, the critical category of speciation that would establish macroevolution (vertical change) is said to be difficult to document as a totally observed event. Although much literature has been written to illustrate the concept, most of it is inferential. Even in these writings, a credible extrapolation of these transformations to establish higher taxonation above the species level is very suspect."

What is clear is that what evolutionists have defined as speciation,  happens. Tthe inability to reproduce does not constitute a new species as I have pointed out  about too  much interbreeding in dogs give the same result and they are not classified as a new species.

You have not presented any verifiable evidence.  You only present what you consider evidence.  Even you lizard example is not evidence of a new species.  They were not heritable changes because to inherit a trait, that trait  must be in the gene pool of the parents.  If it was heritable, it would have happened without isolating the lizards.  The best explanation for the new trait, would be a mutation.

I have told you why I no longest look at links and if you were serious,  while you are reading through your link, you could cut and paste what they offer as evidence, which I guarantee is not verifiable,..  They like you only make dogmatic statements of belief but never offer the science that make it possible.

I have accomplished my goal---show any who are still deciding what is true, they need to look at the other side before they make up their minds.

I see very little purpose  in us continuing to  debate this issue.

Have a nice day.

Love, peace, joy