God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Umm... you still haven't provided any evidence for those claims I've called you out on. You at least mentioned the points, but the evidence is lacking. On the other hand, I've provided evidence in post after post and The Barbarian has done the same. Yet, you continue to make the false "you haven't shown any evidence claim". And you have supplied exactly zero evidence, in this ENTIRE THREAD, supporting your point of view. You've mentioned salamanders and gulls about 40 times, but have never provided a single bit of evidence.

You and Barbarian both consider you believing something and posting it, is evidence.  It is not.  Evidence requires how science proves the claim you both make.  If you ever answered how salamanders remaining salamanders and gulls, gulls, I would not have to keep repeating the question.  You wasn't to declares something as supporting evolution, when the species remains the same.  These wees part of a stgdy of ring species, based on speciation.

Read this carefully, because I am going to simplify it as much as I am able. A population consists of all of the members of a species in a particular area. If a portion of that population becomes separated in some way from the rest of the population (reducing exchange of genetic material with the rest of the population), it can accumulate genetic changes that may lead to the inability to mate with other members of the population. When this inability to generate fertile offspring with that original species, then you no longer have a single species -  you have two. This is speciation, and this makes two new species. So yes, when a portion of a population is no longer able to successfully breed with the rest of the population, a new species is made. At first, the two new species may look very similar (like the gulls and salamanders), but they are still different species. These separate species continue to diverge in their traits, very slowly, maybe near-imperceptibly with each generation, but the changes continue and continue and continue, and can eventually look rather different from the initial population.

The inability to mate does not constitute a  new species. I  have pointed out that can be and is caused by too much interbreeding.  When that happens to dogs. we do not call that a new species.    Why is salamanders any different.  You have a necessary definition to give the faithful to Darwin, hope they have not beleived in  vain.

While it is true that this degree of change has not been observed directly, there is fossil evidence and genetic evidence that suggests that this type of change does indeed take place. Remember that the theory of evolution is only 150 years old, and the use of the scientific method is about the same age, it is perfectly understandable that modern scientists have not observed changes in species of this magnitude.

Also recall that you have not yet provided any evidence that there are YEC scientists that deny evolution, despite your claims to the contrary. Why have you still not addressed that from several days ago?

I am not  interested in the age of the earth debate.  The Bible does not give he age of the earth, so it is not important.  What is of importance is how did the heavens and he earth come into being. and the length of yom(day) in Genesis.

First, are you sure you want evidence for natural selection. In the past you have asked evidence for something and when I've provided it, you go back to "salamanders and still salamanders". Are you certain you want to see evidence for natural selection?

You have only provided what you consider evidence.  I disagree that what you offer is not evidence.   Yes I want you to present the evidence for natural selection so I can show you why it is not really evidence.

Second, you must realize that when you say things like "They don;'t have any real evidence either", it is pretty clear that you really are not interested in seeing evidence that I provide. Try looking at evidence with an open mind. Consider that scientists that work professionally every day with biology might just know more than you do.

First, Let e give you some advice; stop trying to read my mind, you are not very good at it.  Second, get a better definition of evidence.  You don't seem to know what it is.  Third, there are scientists just as qualified and any you can name, who reject what who reject what you have accepted by faith alone.

No you don't. You cannot know what a mutation can or cannot do unless you know what one is. You certainly claim to know what mutations can do, but like so many of your claims, you don't even bother trying to support that claim.

I have supported it several times.  You just don't understand mutations enough to recognize what I say about them is true.

Back up your boasting and show a YEC scientist that denies speciation. Back up your boasting and show me in the Bible where it says that kinds cannot change. You claimed this was in the Bible. Are you possibly making claims that you cannot backup? Surely not...

I have not said any creation scientist deny speciation.  I have said they deny it causes a new species.  Don't  put words in my mouth.  I have never said the Bible says kinds can't change.  I said it does not say they can. 

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

One would think that if someone was intent on pointing out false teachings they would attempt to learn, as much as they were able, about the false teachings they oppose.

IMO, I have done that and IMO, you have not.  You seem to accept an interpretation   if you think it supports evolution and reject it if it does not.I have supported from the language what I accept  or reject, you have not.  Let me suggest I have studied the Bible much more than you have, and if you will post something I have claimed is false teaching, I will show you from God's  inspired word, why it is false.

Love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're wrong about that.   Every new mutation in a population adds information to it.   The formula for information in genetics, like everything else, is shown below  the information (H) is found by multiplying the frequency of every allele for that gene by the log of the frequency of that allele, and summing all the products and multiplying it by -1. 

See why this is so:

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-intuition-behind-shannons-entropy-e74820fe9800

So, for example, if we have a gene in population, with two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, the frequency is about 0.301.    Suppose a new mutation occurs and it eventually results in all three having a frequency of about 1/3, then the information will be about 0.477.    I set the numbers so the math would be relatively easy for you, but feel free to change them; you'll see the same thing; a new mutation always increases information in a population.

See above.   I just showed you were a single mutation did exactly that.  No point in denial.

See above. 0.477 is greater than 0.301.   

This is a complete mystery to you, because you don't understand what "information" means, or how genetics works.  

 

Why don't you tell me what new mutations add to the offspring. 

love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You forget what "evolution" means.  "A change in the allele frequency in a population over time. "   So evolution can happen within a species, or as in the case of O. gigas, it can result in a new species.  And you forgot that individuals don't evolve; populations do.

 

Your indoctrination has been completed.  Evolution requires as change of species. Allele frequency, even if true, can't jump the species barrier.  If evolution was true, it would start with an individual then spread to the population.  .  You have accepted another necessary definition  that tries to support a failed doctrine.

Love, peace joy

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Science basically says that all of life evolved from a single cell ancestor which spontaneously appeared without God. Why don't you believe this?

Despite the initial proposal by Darwin that God created the first cell, I think it is fair to say that most modern scientists (probably a high majority) believe that the first cells originated without divine intervention. I don't believe this because I don't see sufficient evidence explaining how the first cells came to be. Based on the current evidence, I believe divine interaction is more plausible.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

ToE is taught in public schools with the same factual certainty as physics or chemistry. Do u think that is right? Please elaborate.

Evolution is certain. We can see it in everyday examples and the evidence for the implications of evolution, like common ancestry, are very strong. There is no reasonable evidence for an alternative scientific explanation. I would have no problem with a high school science teacher stating that potential explanations exist beyond the scope of scientific explanations. I also have no problem with a high school science teacher leaving the alternative explanations alone and dealing only with the science. I teach at a Christian university where I am blessed to have an environment where I can teach science AND discuss my Christian faith and how it impacts my view of science. Not everyone has this luxury.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Theistic evolution would be labelled unscientific.

True, and I completely understand when (in other forums) people make that exact argument. I often point out that although science is confined to methodological naturalism, that there are pretty clearly realities beyond science.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Do u guys put as much effort into getting ToE believers to realize that God exists? What are your arguments for them?

Aside from this thread here at this particular site, I spend more of my online free time at another site, Peaceful Science, with its forum. The contributors to the forum there range from young earth creationists (a small number) to unapologetic atheists (more of those). I (and other Christ-followers there) spend a great deal of time explaining why we believe what we believe. The forum "owner", Joshua Swamidass, is an MD/PhD that is a vocal follower of Jesus Christ that chooses to take a stand for Him despite the potential negative reaction from the scientific community. To my knowledge, the atheists he interacts with respect his stance, despite the occasional, largely professional, criticism.

My arguments are similar to those common among Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel who begin arguments for Christianity around the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The evidence of His historicity is quite clear, and there are very strong arguments that His death and resurrection were real events, and not the group delusion or fabricated lie of all his followers.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

There would be a lot of young people who get sent away from God after being taught ToE, I did. Do u guys make an effort to support these people?

In my experience, most of the people that question their faith after exposure to the ToE were taught all of their lives that the ToE is nothing but a foolish, easily disproven lie spread by the atheistic scientific community. When these young people discover the truth, this often leads to a crisis of faith. Since they were told many things that were untrue (largely be well-meaning people that also assumed what they were told about evolution was true) about evolution, they naturally wonder what else about their Christian faith was a lie. It is tremendously sad.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

Wouldn't it be much more fruitful and pleasing to God to focus your energy on these people who have been led down the wrong path?

If I could prevent untruths and exaggerations being taught to young children in Christian families, it would save many from the wrong path before they begin.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

What are your thoughts on the big bang theory, cosmology, multiverse theory and astrophysics?

These areas are far out of my area of expertise. I trust the scientific process that has been in effect as the big bang theory has developed over the decades. I'm not a cosmologist, at all, so I leave that area to others. As I understand it, the multiverse theory is greatly lacking in any sort of evidence and is more of a reaction to a "fine tuning" argument for a Creator. I also know very little of astrophysics, but Peaceful Science has several Christian physicists that participate in the forums. Much of what they say is beyond my intelligence level, but I like to read it anyway!

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Genesis 1:24

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

It seems pretty clear what the Bible is literally saying.

Same thing over and over again, now you are worse than Barbarian in the braincell department. I Have exposed your fraudulent deistic God you serve, yet you want to continue your lies about what the Bible says, which is your own private interpretation through the Goggles of evolutionary science. YEC is the Word of God, Not some modern invention as Barbarian says... Evolution is a theory that denies an almighty Omnipotent God who created the earth in six days just like HE said he did in the Word of God. The Fact that nature and the natural process has Laws governing it demands an origin for such Laws, a Lawgiver, who created all things with those inherent laws. Until you see this, You are worshipping the creation and not the creator God. No Different than cutting down a tree and carving an idol out of the tree you just cut down. What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. (Hab. 2:18-20)

All You are doing is worshipping a theory made by a man, Charles Darwin, His Idol, that he "carved", and you now kneel before that idol in submission to it, unable the grasp the Truth of the Word of God, as written in plain and simple language.  God Luck with that come judgment day.

[one.opinion]

20 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Umm... you still haven't provided any evidence for those claims I've called you out on. You at least mentioned the points, but the evidence is lacking. On the other hand, I've provided evidence in post after post and The Barbarian has done the same. Yet, you continue to make the false "you haven't shown any evidence claim". And you have supplied exactly zero evidence, in this ENTIRE THREAD, supporting your point of view. You've mentioned salamanders and gulls about 40 times, but have never provided a single bit of evidence.

You and Barbarian both consider you believing something and posting it, is evidence.

Feel free to supply evidence for those two points I've asked you about (two days ago now). As a reminder, you were going to supply evidence that there are YEC scientists that deny speciation. You were also going to show me where the Bible says that kinds could not change over time.

 

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I didn't mock you, I pointed out your falsehood. So you don't like the term "false accusers", what term would you prefer for people that continue to make false accusations?

So You do not like the term self deception is there a more PC term to use when exposing your self deception? You Just do not get it, do you? You accuse me of being a false accuser, because you are under the spell of a deception that begins inside of you... self deception Is the hardest form of deception to overcome, because the Lie was created by the person defending the lie, and that means everyone exposing the fallacy of this lie is a false accuser, rather than a brother who has been under that same deception himself and is now trying to expose that deception that you are victim to. 

You have no critical thinking ability in you, that would make you question the theory of evolution, because it is propagated by false signs and wonders.... Nothing more than witchcraft, disguised as science. You yourself are propagating this witchcraft disguised as science, but you are so brainwashed that you cannot see this by the indoctrinization of the Universities of "Higher Learning", which are nothing more than temples to this false God of evolution. You Bow down and worship in submission to that "higher learning" and in so doing worship a different God, and not the God of the Word. Then You twist scripture to make it fit your false God, Rather than letting the Word of God teach you, for All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 timothy 3:16). 

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The inability to mate does not constitute a  new species. I  have pointed out that can be and is caused by too much interbreeding.  When that happens to dogs. we do not call that a new species. 

When excessively inbred, some dogs are unable to reproduce at all. That is not what we are talking about. Dogs and breed with other dogs. Dogs can even breed with wolves. However, dogs cannot breed with foxes (another canid). Using reproductive incompatibility as a measuring stick, dogs and foxes are different species, even though they still look rather similar.

28 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

it is pretty clear that you really are not interested in seeing evidence that I provide. Try looking at evidence with an open mind. Consider that scientists that work professionally every day with biology might just know more than you do.

First, Let e give you some advice; stop trying to read my mind, you are not very good at it.

If I provide evidence with links, you don't follow them. When I provide evidence with my own explanations, you ignore it. You are predisposed to reject evidence contrary to your opinion. Do you remember saying "They don;'t have any real evidence either", before any evidence was presented? How would you possibly know the future to see what would be presented as evidence? My conclusion (and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to make this conclusion) is that you really aren't interested in looking at the evidence.

I have heard YEC scientists state that there is no amount of evidence that would change their views. I'm ok with this since they are being honest about their position. You hold the same position, but without actually admitting it.

36 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Yes I want you to present the evidence for natural selection so I can show you why it is not really evidence.

Alright, to avoid confusion after I present evidence for natural selection, let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you stating that natural selection does not exist? Also, could you explain natural selection in your own words so we can see whether I can provide evidence for it?

40 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I have not said any creation scientist deny speciation.  I have said they deny it causes a new species.

You are contradicting yourself. Speciation, by definition, causes new species. Remember, these new species do not need to be obviously different in their traits in order to be new species. This is what you have said.

Quote

 

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

Some may, most do not.

 

Now back it up. You have not shown that creations scientists deny speciation or any other convolution that you have claimed. You want others to show you evidence you either won't look at or consider, and don't supply evidence of your own - all while pretending you do.

48 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I have never said the Bible says kinds can't change.

Let's review the evidence again.

Quote

 

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 are clearly stating that there is something in the Bible that states that a kind cannot change over time.

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Same thing over and over again, now you are worse than Barbarian in the braincell department. I Have exposed your fraudulent deistic God you serve, yet you want to continue your lies about what the Bible says

I'm a little concerned that you are so frustrated by having what the Bible actually says is presented to you. I'm also a little concerned that you are continuing the same false claim. Are you ok?