Theistic Evolution

[The Barbarian]

On 9/11/2024 at 8:35 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution is not just about changes of allel frequency over time.  It’s about claiming a natural creation to take Glory from God*

Seeing as Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, it seems you've been fooled once again.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 9/11/2024 at 8:35 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution is not just about changes of allel frequency over time.  It’s about claiming a natural creation to take Glory from God*

Seeing as Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, it seems you've been fooled once again.

 

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Seeing as Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, it seems you've been fooled once again.

Once more, you pretend that current evolution claims mirror what Darwin claimed, which is absolutely not the case.  Once more, you demonstrate that you either don’t understand evolution or you are flat out lying.  Evolution teaches a single original progenitor as if it were a fact.  

[The Barbarian]

 

On 9/11/2024 at 8:35 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution is not just about changes of allel frequency over time.  It’s about claiming a natural creation to take Glory from God*

 Seeing as Darwin attributed the creation of life to God, it seems you've been fooled once again.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Once more, you pretend that current evolution claims mirror what Darwin claimed

Once more, you misrepresent what I said.   "Evolution" is a natural phenomenon.   Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.    And Darwin's belief that God created the first living things is, like (for example) the same belief of Dobzhnsky, Miller, and other leading "evolutionists", a religious belief, not part of evolutionary theory, in the same way that Newton wrote that God is the Creator, even if God isn't part of gravitational theory.   Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural.   This is why Darwin didn't include the origin of life in evolutionary theory, even though as an Anglican, he believed God created the first living things.

Once more, you demonstrate that you either don’t understand evolutionary theory and Christian belief or you are flat out lying.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Evolution teaches a single original progenitor as if it were a fact.  

Evolution is, like gravity, an observed phenomenon.   And it's genetics that asserts a single common ancestor.   It wasn't until the discovery of the way DNA functions that scientists realized that all known living things have a common ancestor.    Your argument is with genetics, not evolutionary theory.

 

[RV_Wizard]

56 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is, like gravity, an observed phenomenon.   And it's genetics that asserts a single common ancestor. 

The idea of common descent is a fundamental pillar of the theory of evolution, suggesting that all life on Earth can be traced back to a single ancestral organism, often called the "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA).   Source

For the record, so you reject the claim of common descent?

Are you willing to accept that observable speciation is consistent with a common flood history?

Do you accept or reject that ALL Scripture is breathed by God, and is profitable for instruction? 
 

Do you accept that the Lord created all living things and the earth itself in seven days, as God states personally in Exodus 20:11?

Do you believe a person can be a Christian and yet reject foundational doctrine?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The idea of common descent is a fundamental pillar of the theory of evolution, suggesting that all life on Earth can be traced back to a single ancestral organism, often called the "Last Universal Common Ancestor" (LUCA)

Well, let's take a look at that...

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Here are the fundamental pillars of evolution:
The four key points of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are:

individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation;

more offspring are born than can survive;

and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce.

The variations of individuals give some members of the species advantages in the competition to survive and reproduce. Those advantageous traits will be passed to the next generation.

This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time.

https://sciencing.com/darwins-four-main-ideas-evolution-8293806.html

So when did universal common descent become part of biology?    The discovery of DNA's function in heredity showed common descent was a fact.   When I began to study biology in the 1960, that was not included in textbooks of evolutionary theory.    Only after genetics showed universal common descent of all known life on Earth was it considered settled.    In the 1970s, I wrote a paper arguing that until genetic data was adequate, we could not conclude that universal common descent is a fact.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

For the record, so you reject the claim of common descent?

I showed you that genetics has confirmed the fact.  Your argument is with genetics, not evolution.

Biol Direct. 2010; 5: 64

The common ancestry of life

This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system. A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Are you willing to accept that observable speciation is consistent with a common flood history?

Observable speciation rules out the evolution of several million species from a few "kinds" less then 10,000 years ago.    This would require hyperevolution with a number of new species popping up every week.    Natural selection will just not work that fast.   If it had, one would think someone would find it worth remarking about.   But no one did.

Observable geology and distribution of species rules out a worldwide flood at that time.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you accept or reject that ALL Scripture is breathed by God, and is profitable for instruction? 

Your argument with God is not whether or not His word is true.   It's with your revision of what His word means.   You want it both ways.   You want to believe He's telling the truth, but you aren't willing to accept His word as it is.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you accept that the Lord created all living things and the earth itself in seven days

Since Christians have always had various beliefs about what those days were, the idea of literal 24-hour days has never been orthodoxy.    Some interpret it that way; many more don't.

A literal interpretation would have it as six days, not seven.  A minor point,but if you spent more time reading your Bible, it would clear up more than just minor points for you.   And I'd be open to your evidence that if a figurative passage in the Bible is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, that converts it to a literal passage.   What do you have?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you believe a person can be a Christian and yet reject foundational doctrine?

Since what you think of the way God creates things is not a salvation issue, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us.   Only if they make an idol of their new doctrines, and insist everyone must believe them to be a Christian, do they set themselves apart from the church Jesus founded.
 

Edited September 16, 2024 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

For the record, so you reject the claim of common descent?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The discovery of DNA's function in heredity showed common descent was a fact.  

So no, you do NOT reject it.  You believe that it is a fact.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Are you willing to accept that observable speciation is consistent with a common flood history?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Observable speciation rules out the evolution of several million species from a few "kinds" less then 10,000 years ago.  

So, no, you do NOT accept it.  You continue to pretend that the flood narrative; foundational doctrine that Christ also spoke of, never happened.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you accept or reject that ALL Scripture is breathed by God, and is profitable for instruction? 

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Your argument with God is not whether or not His word is true.   It's with your revision of what His word means.

So again, no, you do NOT believe that Scripture comes from God.  You hide behind lies of "revision" when the plain wording of the Bible is posted.  God spoke of a six day creation followed by a day of rest.  You do not believe He told the truth.  

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you accept that the Lord created all living things and the earth itself in seven days, as God states personally in Exodus 20:11?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since Christians have always had various beliefs about what those days were, the idea of literal 24-hour days has never been orthodoxy. 

So you officially reject the Fourth Commandment.  Further, you continue to lie about what the church has historically believed, despite NUMEROUS citations which validated that until the 17th century, virtually nobody in the church disputed the six day creation.  You don't get to make up history.  If you have to lie to support your claim, it's proof your claim came from the father of lies.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you believe a person can be a Christian and yet reject foundational doctrine?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since what you think of the way God creates things is not a salvation issue, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. 

No, sir, you do NOT represent Christianity.  You do not accept the Bible as the word of God, as Jesus taught that it is.  You believe that God lied when He carved the Ten Commandments into stone tablets.

Everything you write is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.  Your posts are false.  You are a promoter of false doctrine.

[The Barbarian]

The discovery of DNA's function in heredity showed common descent was a fact.   Your complain is about genetics, not evolution.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So no, you do NOT reject it.  You believe that it is a fact.

Comes down to evidence.   So there you are.

Observable speciation rules out the evolution of several million species from a few "kinds" less then 10,000 years ago.  

This would require hyperevolution with a number of new species popping up every week.    Natural selection will just not work that fast.   If it had, one would think someone would find it worth remarking about.   But no one did.

Observable geology and distribution of species rules out a worldwide flood at that time.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, no, you do NOT accept it. 

Evidence, again.    So your particular interpretation of the flood story does not square with the observed reality.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So, no, you do NOT accept it. 

You continue to pretend that Jesus claimed a worldwide flood was in scripture, which it is not.

Your argument with God is not whether or not His word is true.   It's with your revision of what His word means.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So again, no, you do NOT believe that Scripture comes from God. 

That's false, and it's very hard to believe that you don't know you just made a false accusation.    Scripture comes from God.  What you say about it, does not come from God.   And you have a tendency to confuse the two.

Since Christians have always had various beliefs about what those days were, the idea of literal 24-hour days has never been orthodoxy.    Some interpret it that way; many more don't.

A literal interpretation would the creation story as six days, not seven.  A minor point,but if you spent more time reading your Bible, it would clear up more than just minor points for you.   And I'd be open to your evidence that if a figurative passage in the Bible is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, that converts it to a literal passage.   What do you have?

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

So you officially reject the Fourth Commandment. 

No, I just disagree with your interpretation of it.   As you know, your interpretation has never been considered to be the only acceptable interpretation by the majority of Christians.

You don't get to make up history.  I choose to believe that you aren't lying about his; I think you're so programmed that you can't think logically about it.

7 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Do you believe a person can be a Christian and yet reject foundational doctrine?

Since what you think of the way God creates things is not a salvation issue, YE creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us.   Only if they make an idol of their new doctrines, and insist everyone must believe them to be a Christian, do they set themselves apart from the church Jesus founded.

16 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

No, sir, you do NOT represent Christianity.  You do not accept the Bible as the word of God, as Jesus taught that it is.  You believe that God lied when He carved the Ten Commandments into stone tablets.

Everything you write is 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.  Your posts are false.  You are a promoter of false doctrine.

You're angry and embarrassed and lashing out.    I think if you stopped to consider the issue, you wouldn't be engaging in such false witness.    If you were confident in your new beliefs, I would think you wouldn't become so enraged when other Christians didn't share them.   As I said, they aren't salvation issues, and they aren't foundational to Christian belief.  

Why not set your pride aside, and show a little more confidence in what you do believe?

Edited September 16, 2024 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Comes down to evidence.   So there you are.

WRONG!!!  It comes down to FAITH, and there you lack.  

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Observable geology and distribution of species rules out a worldwide flood at that time.

So you put your faith in other's interpretations of the creation and reject the teaching of the Creator,  BRLLIANT!!

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You continue to pretend that Jesus claimed a worldwide flood was in scripture, which it is not.

Maybe you should open a Bible sometime.

Matthew 24:37-39  But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

That was Jesus, by the way.

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Scripture comes from God.  What you say about it, does not come from God. 

I quote it.  If what I post from Scripture doesn't come from God, then how can you claim Scripture comes from God?  You dispute most of what is in the Scriptures, as I proved in a previous post.  The truth is in the Scriptures, but the truth is not in you.

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, I just disagree with your interpretation of it. 

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.  See any interpretation there?  Neither does anyone else.  See anything new there?  Neither does anyone else.  

 

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You continue to pretend that Jesus claimed a worldwide flood was in scripture, which it is not.

Genesis 7:19-23  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.  And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

I think that pretty much proves you wrong.  You cannot read this and come to the conclusion that this is a local flood, as you have falsely claimed DOZENS of times.