God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Alive said:

This post creates a false analogy ( drawing a bullseye around an arrow) in order to attack a straw man and finally are for special pleading that we can't use probability to determine the likelihood of events after they happen. 

No.  The likelihood of something happening after it happens is 1.0.    As you see by shuffling a deck of cards, extremely unlikely events occur all the time.   That's the flaw in Meyer's story; the probability of the order you got in that shuffled deck is 1.0.   But before it happens, it's so astoundingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.   So are the folds in those proteins Meyer is talking about.   Actually they are more likely, since living things are subject to natural selection, which means much of it is not randomly determined at all.

There are other mathematical problems, but as you see, Meyer's reasoning  declares shuffled decks of cards to be impossible.   Let's consider the likelihood of Meyer, give the genes of his great,great, great, great grandparents.    The likelihood of his genome resulting from their genes is even less than the likelihood of your deck of cards.   So Meyer has also proven that he's so unlikely as to be essentially impossible.

In truth, the the likelihood of Meyer is 1.0.   But many years ago, his likelihood was extremely low.  If you'd like me to compute an estimate, using the number of human genes, I can do that.

The analogy is perfectly applicable.   Meyer found an arrow in a tree, drew a bulls-eye around it, and marvelled at the accuracy.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

If you doubt the scriptures, you are listening to Satan, not God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Even if it seems wrong to you, it is the word of God.  Believe Him.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I have explained the passage, if you don' accept it, that's your problem.  Under you understanding, there  is a contradiction in God's inspired and inerrant  word.  If you can live with that, be my guest.

I'll have to go with God's word on this, not yours.   And no, there's no contradiction at all.  As we see in James 2, we are justified by works and not by faith only.   That's what God says.  Believe Him or don't believe Him.  Up to you.

[omega2xx]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Here is what you continue to ignore - there were clear changes in the population over time. What started as ten lizards introduced to a new island became a large population of unknown number, that were obviously different from the original population those 10 came from. The offspring are not the same, but in the process of evolution.

They are the same---THEY ARE STILL  LIZARDS

I am using a definition of evolution used by scientists, you are using a definition of your own personal preference. Which one do you think is more suitable to scientific work?

I am using the definition I was taught in, grammar school, high school and college.  The one you use is a man-made definition necessary because the standard definition will not allow a species remaining the same to support evolution.

For the 32nd time in this thread - by definition, speciation results in new species.

For the 33rd time, the definition for speciation is a man-made definition necessary to try and support evolution. A species reaming the same, is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence of "after their kind," which is proved thousands of times every day, and can't be falsified.

You must have skipped the evidence I pasted in the exact same post. I cannot read these posts directly to you so I cannot help it if you just gloss over the evidence.

If I did it was not intentional.

 

Yes, interbreeding can lead to sterility effects. It does not, however, lead to speciation.

Speciaetion   DOES NOT change the species.  Therefore it does not support evolution.

I provided evidence for evolution in the lizards. Salamanders and gulls do not have anything to do with the example that clearly shows verifiable evidence.

Unless you can understand that to suppoort evolution, the species must change, you will never understand evolution.  You need to get out of the box Darwin and his evangelist have put you in.

As much as you want it to be true, you cannot decide how scientists use the term "evolution".

I can as long as there are equally qualified scientist who reject the definition, and there are.

No, evolution does not require a change in species.

Yes it does.

We can observe it during the process before two distinct species are formed.

Not only can you not, you can't give me an example of a species EVOLVING into 2 distinct species

"After their kind" does no such thing. Progeny are always the same kind as their parents, even if they differ slightly in their traits.

Yes that is true and it refutes evolution.  If the progeny is ALWAYS  thee same species, and it is, as you just stated,  evolution has not happened.

Now a dog giving birth to lizard would violate the "after their kind" observation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that states that a kind cannot change over time.

Yes there  is and you just mentioned it---Progeny are ALWAYS  the same.

You have repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic science. I don't think you are a fair judge of what definition is used by the scientific community.

I know you have demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge  of genetics.  You have been indoctrinated with false definition and the strange idea that evolution can be  supported by the species remaining the same.  That is contradictory.

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, there was a definite audience for the initial writing. Just because we can still use scripture does not mean there was not an original intended audience.

OK, who was the specific audience and how do you know it was?

Yes, the author (likely Moses) wrote by the inspiration of God. However, we do not know if it was dictated.

Sure we do.  It didn't take God 40 day and nights to give Moses the 10 commandments, and man is not allowed to make up Scripture.

And the polytheistic environment certainly did have a role in what God wanted His people to know.

I have not denied that.

You are arguing for the sake of it, without any reason to do so.

Unless you can read minds you are not qualified to determine my motives.

In your mind, perhaps, but apparently not Packer's. I'm not trying to convince you that I AM right, but that I COULD BE right. And Packer agrees that I could be right.

Both of you could be right, but IMO, what he said and you accept can't be supported by Scripture,  Unless you can' do that, you don't  know if you are right and there is a good chance what  He said can be refuted by Scripture, making it wrong. 

I am gong to go back and if I find what he said, I will try to refute it with Scripture.

Here is what Packekr said, " I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I maintain it in print, but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other.

Let me suggest that "after their kind" for sea animals, birds, bugs, cattle, beasts and man is about evolution not being true.

Love, peace, joy

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by omega2xx

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

They are the same---THEY ARE STILL  LIZARDS

Just evolved to adapt to their new environment.   Adaptations include stronger jaws, a new digestive organ, and behavioral changes (no longer territorial, because there's no need for it in herbivores).  That's what evolution is.

11 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I am using the definition I was taught in, grammar school, high school and college.

No, that's not the definition they use.   The scientific definition of "evolution" is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."    If you don't use that, then you're not talking about evolution, as it's used in biology.

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Unless you can understand that to suppoort evolution, the species must change, you will never understand evolution.  You need to get out of the box Darwin and his evangelist have put you in.

Even creationist organizations admit that species change and new ones appear.  

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. 

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Instead of denying what is manifestly obvious, even to your fellow creationists, find a way to accommodate your beliefs to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

OK, who was the specific audience and how do you know it was?

It was written for the Israelites, the Beni Israel.

 

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

I'm just accepting Genesis as it is, without the revisions of creationism.

See below.  You added "ex nihilo" to his word on creation of life; and He specifically says life was created from previously-created matter.  That's a good example of your revisions of God's word.   He does not say life was created ex nihilo;

No, God says He formed  man for previously created matter.  The man was not alive until God breathed into his nostrils, on him and he became a LIVING being.  That life was ex nihilo.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

You merely changed His word to fit your own preferences.

You have to go back to Gen 1:21,although that verse may be  limited to  water creatures and birds.  However since there was no cattle, beast or creeping things, the had to be created ex nihilo.

Do a little study of Genesis.   He says the Earth brought forth animals as He intended.   If you think that's wrong, take it up with Him.   You're "ex nihilo" definition of "created" is your own private definition:

The earth  has  no creative power and there were no animals before God created them .   Therefor it had to be ex nihilo

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

Because your new doctrines require life to be created from nothing, you will not accept His word in Genesis.  Let God do it His way, and accept it as it is.

If there is nothing, then there is something, it must be ex nihilo. If you have a better explanation as to how something got here when theer was nothing, i would like to hear it.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Just evolved to adapt to their new environment.   Adaptations include stronger jaws, a new digestive organ, and behavioral changes (no longer territorial, because there's no need for it in herbivores).  That's what evolution is.

DUUH.  If they are still lizards they did not evolve.  That is not what e4volution is.  Evolution b y definition is a  species becoming a different species.  The new traits could be caused by mutations.

No, that's not the definition they use.   The scientific definition of "evolution" is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."    If you don't use that, then you're not talking about evolution, as it's used in biology.

If you use and incorrect definition it isn't real biology.  It became necessary for evolution to invent a new definition because he real one didn't work for them.  What causes a change in an allele frequency.  This is a question you will not answer.  Time will  not change proven genetics truths. 

Even creationist organizations admit that species change and new ones appear.  

Some may, most do not.  You keep trying to use the minority to represent the whole.  You have it backwards.  There are many more creationists organizations who reject evolution and that on real scientific grounds

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. 

Of course a species will change because of  dominant genes, but they only changes traits.  It does not change the species.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

Instead of denying what is manifestly obvious, even to your fellow creationists, find a way to accommodate your beliefs to it.

Take your own advice and try and post some evidence to support you lack of knowledge.  For example the one I ask and said you will not answer---What causes a change in an allele frequency. 

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It was written for the Israelites, the Beni Israel.

 

AS usual, you just make a dogmatic statement but don't supprt it with Scripture.

[one.opinion]

53 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

AS usual, you just make a dogmatic statement but don't supprt it with Scripture.

Pot, meet Kettle.