Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[Sparks]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been misled about that, too...

You can't even look at the photo, and realize there were no hands and feet found?  Really?

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Maybe stop reading only Answers in Genesis. That's not a scientific journal.

Uranium-lead, Rubidium-strontium, Fission track dating, Radiocarbon dating, Samarium-neodymium dating among 100 others all have the same calibration issues.

They cannot calibrate them to reality, but they sure pretend to do it. 

[teddyv]

54 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

These are Godly men not afraid of the truth... and as it agrees with truth (Scripture)

I fully believe that they are sincere Christian men and women. However, in their desire to prove their young earth hypothesis they will misrepresent, cherry-pick and omit information to support their interpretation. I do not find their ethical decisions over the years to be admirable. I would also argue that their gospel foundation is misplaced, elevating the literal reading of Genesis over that of Christ.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I fully believe that they are sincere Christian men and women. However, in their desire to prove their young earth hypothesis they will misrepresent, cherry-pick and omit information to support their interpretation. I do not find their ethical decisions over the years to be admirable. I would also argue that their gospel foundation is misplaced, elevating the literal reading of Genesis over that of Christ.

That's what the evolutionists do. 

Instead, the creationists simply stick to what the Bible says, by definition.  If the Bible suggests that man was created by God, we believe it.  We don't make up some 'billions of years' fairy tale about primordial soup.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

You can't even look at the photo, and realize there were no hands and feet found?  Really?

Well, let's take a look...

Their discovery came from analysing and comparing the internal bony structures of fossil knuckle and thumb joints from the hands of several fossil species from South Africa, eastern Africa and Europe. These included: Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens dated between 12 thousand and three million years old.

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/05/fossils-show-that-early-ancestors-had-dual-hand-use/129251

There have been many Australopithecine fossils found, including hands and feet.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Instead, the creationists simply stick to what the Bible says, by definition. 

Some creationists.   But YE creationists use a modern revision of Genesis that follows their own desires.

Since evolution is completely compatible with Genesis, there's no need to invent YE doctrines, trying to improve it.   It's fine as it is.

 

[Sparks]

On 12/19/2020 at 8:29 PM, The Barbarian said:

Some creationists.   But YE creationists use a modern revision of Genesis that follows their own desires.

Since evolution is completely compatible with Genesis, there's no need to invent YE doctrines, trying to improve it.   It's fine as it is.

Genesis is NOT completely compatible. I addressed the conflict in another thread you were on:

 

[Sparks]

On 12/19/2020 at 8:27 PM, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look...

Their discovery came from analysing and comparing the internal bony structures of fossil knuckle and thumb joints from the hands of several fossil species from South Africa, eastern Africa and Europe. These included: Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens dated between 12 thousand and three million years old.

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/05/fossils-show-that-early-ancestors-had-dual-hand-use/129251

There have been many Australopithecine fossils found, including hands and feet.

OK, so you cannot acknowledge the photo I showed of both the fossils, and the rendering called Lucy, and you showed no fossil photos.

[The Barbarian]

Some creationists.   But YE creationists use a modern revision of Genesis that follows their own desires.

Since evolution is completely compatible with Genesis, there's no need to invent YE doctrines, trying to improve it.   It's fine as it is.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Genesis is NOT completely compatible.

It is, as you have seen, completely compatible.    No point in denying it.  Since evolution is observed daily by scientists, it's impossible to deny.   Even many creationist group go so far as admitting the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms.   Which is, as you learned, the scientific definition of macroevolution.

Nothing in Genesis denies this.   That's why the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept that evolution is consistent with God's word.

 

 

.

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 12/19/2020 at 7:30 AM, The Barbarian said:

That would be natural selection.   And no, time isn't absolutely necessary.    Many YE creationists, to avoid the logical problems of too many species on the Ark, have suggested some kind of magical hyperevolution that rapidly cranked out new species, genera, and families of animals in just a thousand years or so.

Once you can add nonscriptural miracles whenever you have a difficulty, nothing is impossible.

 

They also believe {dinosaurs] were around when Noah built the Ark.   So they have to get creative about the Arks dimensions [vs] who was allowed on board.   I am not "YEC" but I am a "Creationist" that believes in some of the Hebrew interpretations that would take the Earth to somewhere not immediate but before the "Ice Age."   And realistically [not] the "Ice Age," but the conditions that caused the "Ice Age."