God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

No, that's wrong.   As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the 20th century.   For example, St. Augustine showed that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones.   Would you like to learn about that?

37 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You should stick to science and not delve into theology, because you have no clue what your talking about.

You might want to learn about these things.  

Ronald Numbers: The Creationists

https://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390

St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram

English Translations are available, if you check with Amazon.

Good luck.

49 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Take your own advice.  While the word for day(yom) can mean an extended period of time, every time it is used with a number, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day as we know  it today.

Sorry, that belief won't work for you.   As you saw, the text itself says that it's not a literal day, since you can't have mornings and evenings with no sun yet to have them.    Which is why early Christians like St. Augustine realized that they weren't literal days.

51 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Plant life was created on the third day; the sun was created on the fourth day.  Plants can't live more that a few days without light and warmth.  Therefor it is impossible for the days to be millions of years.

As Augustine realized, these "yom" weren't periods of time, but categories of creation. You're still having trouble accepting His word apart from your own desires.

 

[omega2xx]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm not accusing you of it, just pointing out the fact that you refused to read them. You said so yourself."

And I told you why---I read them for 20 years and not one of them included any evidence.

"You didn't include a link."

But I did included the information you need to verify what I posted.

"It's a little frustrating when people demand evidence, and then won't look at it isn't it? So until you provide evidence that other young earth creationists disagree with Wise and Wood, it is just your opinion. After all, talk is cheap."

I have an reason  for not reading links, do you?  I didn't present them as YE creationist, I presented them as PhD's in some field of science who reject evolution on scientific grounds. BTW, askisg,  is not demanding.

It is not just my opinion unless you can show that I am wrong.  You have tried that before and failed.

Love, peace , joy

 

[dhchristian]

31 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

What Biblical passages do you rely on to support this statement?

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. (Mark 13:19)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20) Read this whole passage from verse 18 through to end of chapter as this is very prophetic of the times we are living in, as well as Romans 8 where the doctrine of the creation as vital to Christian doctrine is laid out The following verse being an example thereof... For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:22)

These are verses that counter the uniformitarianism of the theistic(deistic) evolutionists....And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:4-7) Here we see that God will once again act upon his creation in ways that do not fit the uniformitarian assumption of the evolutionist/Deist, and the ones doing the scoffing will be from amongst your subset within the religious community. These words should convict you if you have the Holy Ghost.

I Mentioned the letter to the Laodieans already to you, and the descriptive Jesus uses for this terminal generation of Himself... These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14)

The New birth, also known as the New creation in Christ Jesus is a whole concept that puts a doctrinal wrinkle in theistic(deistic) evolution in that there is a first Adam and a last Adam. this is found throughout the writings of Paul doctrinally for example: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)

Paul speaks of the formation of Eve from the Rib of Adam as a doctrinal statement.... For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1 tim. 2:13) Formed being the Word Plaso which is to be formed from clay, a term used in pottery. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. matthew 24:37, Jesus confirms Noah's day, and the flood that ensued

For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Heb. 4:4)

I could go on here but since you will not read them I will stop.

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by dhchristian

[The Barbarian]

So that explains things.   Keep in mind, Wise and Wood don't accept evolution, either.   They're just honest enough to admit that there lots of very good evidence for it.

9 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It would be a simple thing for you to post the evidence they offer and that would solve the problem. Why are you unwilling to do that?

Dr. Wise writes:

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.

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

There's a lot more there.   Go and learn.

Dr. Wood:

Quite a while back, Steve Matheson posted an interesting item and challenge on his blog about the Notch protein. His post gives a lot of detail on Notch itself, so I won't cover it again here but instead just rehash the basics. There's a protein called Notch that is used in cell-cell signalling during embryonic development. It's found in flies, jellyfish, sea urchins, humans, frogs, and many other critters. Steve asks the important question, "Why does every animal use Notch?" He gives three options: (1) It's the only functional option, (2) It's historical contingency, (3) It's the personal preference of a designer. He rules out (1), since Notch's function is so simple it could be done by many different proteins. It's like a key & lock; no need to use the same key in every lock. Option (3) would require some knowledge of the designer and the designer's preferences, which ID is notoriously unwilling to hypothesize on. Steve prefers option (2): "The earliest animals settled on this choice, and their descendants have used it ever since."

To illustrate how this works, I've created a sequence alignment of some Notch proteins (from mouse, human, frog (Xenopus), fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster laevis), sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), and the jellyfish-like hydra (Hydra vulgaris). In the alignment, different amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are represented as letters of the alphabet. Looking at the mouse and human sequences at the top, you can see that they are identical for this segment. That means that for this segment of Notch, mouse and humans really do have "the same" Notch.

Comparing the frog Notch to the human/mouse Notch, we find a few differences. In the first position of the alignment, the frog has a serine where the mammals have a proline. There are two other differences (at positions 21 and 48 of the alignment), indicating that the frog's Notch is only 94% identical to the mammalian Notch (47/50 = 94% identical). The fly's Notch is even less similar over this segment (42/50 = 84% identical). Most dissimilar are the sea urchin and hydra sequences, at 60% and 44% identical respectively for the illustrated segment.

You'll notice looking at those numbers that they seem to form a kind of pattern. Most simiar to humans is the mouse (a mammal), then the frog (a fellow vertebrate), and then the invertebrate animals. The similarity in Notch is roughly the same similarity that you would see at the anatomical level. In this set of organisms, humans are most similar to mice, then to other vertebrates like frogs, then to invertebrates.
...
Now, here's the kick: There's no functional reason for Notch to show this kind of similarity. As Steve points out, it's just a lock-and-key mechanism role that it's performing. All animals could truly have identical Notch proteins, and they would work fine. Or animals could have Notch proteins that have a random bunch of differences. They would still work fine. Instead, what we find is a set of proteins that have a very particular pattern of similarities, a pattern that is very easy to explain if the Notch proteins evolved like this:(see diagram)

In this diagram, the evolution of Notch begins on the left of the diagram. As the species evolve, different copies of Notch in different species (different branches of the tree) accumulate different mutations. The later that species diverge, the less time there is for mutations to accumulate. In the present, creatures that diverged recently have Notch proteins that are very similar, and creatures that diverged in the more distant past will have Notch proteins that are less similar.
...
How can a creationist explain this? At present, not very easily. There have been some attempts at refuting these patterns, but they are not very convincing. Looking back at Steve's explanatory options, I reject the notion of functional requirement and historic contingency, so that leaves the preference of a designer. The question is why? For what purpose did God arrange Notch proteins in that particular pattern?
...

I don't want to discredit these explanations of protein homology and similarity, since I think they're all reasonable. But overall, when the exceptions become the rule, maybe we should be rethinking the rule itself? Maybe the fact that proteins occur in multiple copies in the same organism or don't form a very evolutionary pattern is telling us something about what these similarities mean. Maybe the key to understanding protein homology is not the fact that a select few sequences can make evolutionary trees. Maybe God's trying to tell us something in these similarities?

What we creationists need now are fewer people taking potshots at the homology argument and more people working to figure out what homology actually means. 

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/notch-revisited.html

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I could go on here but since you will not read them I will stop.

You seem to be arguing that if Jesus mentioned a figurative passage, that immediately converts it to a literal one.   What is your evidence for that?

 

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

You might want to learn about these things.  

Ronald Numbers: The Creationists

https://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390

St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram

English Translations are available, if you check with Amazon.

Good luck.

I am not promoting ID per/se, or even answers in genesis,I am promoting the age old faith in the literal creation account that has been believed in and is fundamental to orthodox Christian and Jewish doctrine. That is the literal interpretation of the genesis account of creation in 6 days. The ID, And AIG groups are trying to apply modern science to prove what we have believed for millennia. YEC is not a new doctrine, it is the very foundation of our faith with you seek to undermine with your deism. I Believe in a theistic God who created all in six literal days, and also destroyed all save those 8 that were on the ark, and the creatures therein via a flood, and that the preflood world and the post flood world were vastly different from one another, as is indicated in scripture by the reduced lifespan of mankind, which clearly states that history is not uniform. Evolutionists have finally come to see this, and instead of giving credit to God and to his wrath, they call it "Punctuated Equilibrium".

Did You Know also, that scripture speaks of the concept of Pangea, and also says that this breakup was not of the slow steady kind that uniformitarians assume, but a rapid separation of the continents that happened over the course of a lifetime and has slowed down to the pace it is now? Imagine that, a book written 4000 years ago confirming modern science, and testifying to the event via eyewitness testimony thousands of years before science came up with the concept of Pangea.

That being said I would not discount the testimony of the Word of God as the deists have done.  

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

You seem to be arguing that if Jesus mentioned a figurative passage, that immediately converts it to a literal one.   What is your evidence for that?

My evidence is because I Know Him, and He is the Word of God that spoke these things into existence. I Believe this by faith, and that is part of what it means to be a Christian. He testified of himself, for there is no greater testimony.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:

You seem to be arguing that if Jesus mentioned a figurative passage, that immediately converts it to a literal one.   What is your evidence for that?

45 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

My evidence is because I Know Him, and He is the Word of God that spoke these things into existence.

So whatever is right in your sight, rather than God's word.   But no evidence to support it.  

[The Barbarian]

49 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I am not promoting ID per/se, or even answers in genesis,I am promoting the age old faith in the literal creation account that has been believed in and is fundamental to orthodox Christian and Jewish doctrine.

As you just learned, orthodox Christians like St. Augustine, demonstrated that the "yom" of Genesis could not be literal days, as evidence by the text itself.

A literal six days has never been the orthodox understanding; in fact, orthodoxy doesn't demand either: literal and non-literal interpretations are within orthodoxy. 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong.   As you learned, YE creationism was invented in the 20th century.   For example, St. Augustine showed that the "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones.   Would you like to learn about that?"

He showed no such thing.  He only gave his interpretation. which is all you have done.  NO REAL EVIDENCE.

"You might want to learn about these things. "

Ronald Numbers: The Creationists

https://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Scientific-Creationism-Intelligent-Expanded/dp/0674023390

St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram

English Translations are available, if you check with Amazon.

Good luck."

I don't need luck, I need something you don't have-- EVIDENCE

"Sorry, that belief won't work for you.   As you saw, the text itself says that it's not a literal day, since you can't have mornings and evenings with no sun yet to have them.    Which is why early Christians like St. Augustine realized that they weren't literal days."

You need a little more education.  We do not need the sun to have a morning and an evening.  All we need is light---LET THERE BE LIGHT, and the earth rotating.  Did he explain how the plants lived for million  of years with no sun light?  No he didn't and you can't either.  That alone is enough to show that Yom could not be more than a few days, and since the word can, and does at times mean 24 hours, that is the best interpretation of the word

"As Augustine realized, these "yom" weren't periods of time, but categories of creation. You're still having trouble accepting His word apart from your own desires."

Augustine was wrong "yom"  does mean a period of time.  It can refer to a day or to a longer period of time.  Scholars have a better understanding of Hebrew now than they had in Augustine's time.

I have trouble accepting his word because it is wrong, and you don't know enough to recognize it.  You are the one willing to accept an error to try and reinforce your own desires.

Do you want me to teach you more?  It will set you free.

Start with these verses:

Gen 7:13 = On the very same yom,  Noah, Shem Ham and Japheth...entered the ark.

Gen 17:26 - The very same yom, Abraham was circumcised.

Gen 34:25 -Now it came about on the third yom, when they were in pain...

Ex 20:8 - Remember the Sabbath yom, and  keep it holy.

You would be way ahead of he game if you studied what God says, instead of what some errant man says.

Love, peace, joy

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by omega2xx