God used Evolution to create man

[JacksBratt]

All of them. They all mutate from one generation to the next. Beneficial ones are selected, harmful ones tend to be eliminated.

In the history of man, we have not seen any new developments or changes of human men to something different. I believe we may have taller periods, shorter, etc. But all in all still men and women. I don't see any animals changing in any way to form new species.

Here's one to get you started - there are dozens.

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Cont...hibians/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Extinction

Dozens? That just won't cut it. There would need to be thousands of transitional stages to justify the thousands of different species that "evolved".

And let me guess: for each additional fossil that is found, you'll claim 2 more 'gaps' that need to be filled, right?

Na, but the spotty number of fossils for the continual evolution from single cell organisms to the vast number of species of animals and creatures we have today would have to show much more steps than what is in existence.

You had some examples in mind?

Alligators and Crocodiles - The crocodile family is thought to have lived 230 million years ago and remains virtually unchanged since that time.
Army Ants - date back 100 million years to the time of the dinosaur
Cockroaches - dates back 350 million years
Coelacanth - Dates back 400 million years.
Crinoid or Sea Lilly have been found in sedminents dating back 150 million years and yet the modern living variety is virtually identical.
Cycads date back 240 million years ago
Dragonfly dates back 230 million years, but is unchanged in almost every detail.
Ginkgo tree belongs to the family Ginkgoaceae which dates back to 270 million years. They were thought to be extinct until they were discovered in 1691 in the Japan.
Horseshoe Crab - Believed to have lived 300 million years ago, but remain almost identical today.
Nautilus - believed to have lived 500 million years ago, but remains almost completely unchanged.
Sturgeon is claimed to be 250 million years old, and living since the time of the dinosaurs.

These examples are believed to be millions or billions of years old. I don't beleive that any are older that 6 thousand or so. Is millions and billions of years good enough for you?

Speaking of "seeded", some of my family are farmers. Very good farmers. They're very skilled in being able to get things to grow well.

And you know what? They're able to do that, without knowing where the dirt came from in the first place. Strange huh?

How is this relevant?

My family farms just fine without knowing where the dirt came from. Or the water, for that matter.

Evolutionary theory works just fine too, without knowing for sure where the first life came from.

Again, how is this any kind of argument? Ignorance is bliss??

You're kinda funny.

Are you saying that paranormal events, ghosts, intelligent life from other dimensions, demonic activity is not a fact?

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you serious?

Are you denying the existence of ghosts, demonic activity, beings from other dimensions?

 

[madaz]

Are you denying the existence of ghosts, demonic activity, beings from other dimensions?

Please answer my question first, then I will answer yours.

Do you seriously believe evolution should explain those types of phenomena?

 

[JacksBratt]

Jacksbratt said "So you have know way to explain how life started or got here or began."
​

No. Only that it obviously did.

I just love that answer. "It happened so we don't have to explain how"
"It's a mystery but we don't care, whats the next step we are assuming"

Science attempts to "prove" nothing.[/quotes]

This makes it very easy to back your argument with science I guess.
"My argument is solidly backed by science that proves nothing"

 

[JacksBratt]

Please answer my question first, then I will answer yours.

Do you seriously believe evolution should explain those types of phenomena?

I think that there is definitely something going on with other dimensions. It is becoming more and more apparent.

Creation is linked to and backed by text and scripture that explain that it does exist.

IF the only life evolution speaks of is still unexplainable by evolution, then how are you going to deal with other dimensions, the existence of a soul or spirit. How in the world are you going to explain the beginning of them too?

 

[madaz]

I think that there is definitely something going on with other dimensions. It is becoming more and more apparent.

Creation is linked to and backed by text and scripture that explain that it does exist.

IF the only life evolution speaks of is still unexplainable by evolution, then how are you going to deal with other dimensions, the existence of a soul or spirit. How in the world are you going to explain the beginning of them too?

But Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, why should it explain the origin of anything else.

 

[JacksBratt]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840061-8/#post66268103

Please click on the link in that post for the original letter Dr. Patterson wrote explaining how creationists had unethically manipulated what he actually said.

In my opinion, this looks like a man who stated the truth and is now getting flack from the "evolution" camp. The documents are quoted from the manuscript that they have on tape.

 

[JacksBratt]

But Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, why should it explain the origin of anything else.

Why should it be taught at all if it cannot explain anything or prove anything, since science doesn't prove anything?

 

[madaz]

Why should it be taught at all if it cannot explain anything or prove anything, since science doesn't prove anything?

Yet you are using the "fruits" of science to promote your propaganda.

Of course evolution explains something. The fact that you don't even know what evolution explains, is revealing, but not at all surprising.

 

[freezerman2000]

Why should it be taught at all if it cannot explain anything or prove anything, since science doesn't prove anything?

OK..Let's start from the beginning..the origins..You don't like Abeogenisis or how ever you spell it..yet that is what Genesis looks like..Life from dirt and that was only man... according to Genesis..how about the other life forms?.."God breathed life into clay".
"Big Bang" Light certainly emanated from the after effects..stars and galaxies being born
"Let there be light".

 

[AV1611VET]

OK..Let's start from the beginning..the origins..You don't like Abeogenisis or how ever you spell it..yet that is what Genesis looks like..Life from dirt and that was only man... according to Genesis..how about the other life forms?.."God breathed life into clay".

Does that include the angels?

If so, what substance did angels consist of before God breathed life into them?

Dirt? clay? ectoplasm? unobtainium?

 

[freezerman2000]

you tell me..
There is nothing in the Genesis account that mentions how the Angels were created

 

[JacksBratt]

Reproduction was not God's intention. That is a result of Sin and separation from the Father which ended special creation.

If reproduction was not in God's plan, why did he make Adam and Eve both quite equipped for reproduction. The forming of Eve happened before the fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

you tell me..

How can I, without giving the Bible what you would call a "black eye"?

I'll do it anyway.

They came into existence ex nihilo, IMO -- and that means abiogenesis is a joke.

And what's with "you tell me"?

Afraid to say, "I don't know"?

It seems you certainly want me to do it.

Take your own advice, please.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yet you are using the "fruits" of science to promote your propaganda.

Evolution uses science and creation uses science to back their Bible. Both camps use the sciences. Evolutionists are the ones that are always saying that "science proves nothing"

If this is true then neither evolution or creation should use science to prove their idea of the origin of life and all the beings on the earth because "science proves nothing".

Of course evolution explains something. The fact that you don't even know what evolution explains, is revealing, but not at all surprising.

I know that evolution stands on the same science that can be used to back creation. I know that evolution claims to explain the resultant species on the earth but cannot explain the origin of life that supposedly started it all.

 

[JacksBratt]

OK..Let's start from the beginning..the origins..You don't like Abeogenisis or how ever you spell it..yet that is what Genesis looks like..Life from dirt and that was only man... according to Genesis..how about the other life forms?.."God breathed life into clay".
"Big Bang" Light certainly emanated from the after effects..stars and galaxies being born
"Let there be light".

Not sure what you are trying to say here

 

[freezerman2000]

Why not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think that there is definitely something going on with other dimensions. It is becoming more and more apparent.

Creation is linked to and backed by text and scripture that explain that it does exist.

IF the only life evolution speaks of is still unexplainable by evolution, then how are you going to deal with other dimensions, the existence of a soul or spirit. How in the world are you going to explain the beginning of them too?

-_- then I suppose gravitational theory should explain how disease processes work. Different theories for different things, no scientific theory that currently exists explains literally everything by itself. Your expectation is equivalent to someone expecting Song of Songs to describe the biblical flood and every other event in the bible by itself.

 

[freezerman2000]

The way Genesis described the Origins describes what you despise..the scientific explanation..only without the actual processes.
Reread it and actually think about it.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

In my opinion, this looks like a man who stated the truth and is now getting flack from the "evolution" camp. The documents are quoted from the manuscript that they have on tape.

Imagine you said, "There is no God but the one from the Christian Bible," in a small informal gathering of fellow fundamentalist believers, and unbeknownst to you, someone with an anti-Christian agenda was there surreptitiously recording the conversations. How would you feel if that person then gleefully wrote sensationalist headlines all over the internet claiming that JacksBratt, a creationist Christian, said, "There is no God!" Technically, the headlines would be true because those words had been said, but they are diametrically different from what you meant. Would you feel that was an unethical action? Would it be upsetting to you that someone had butchered your words and maliciously used you to promote an agenda that was contrary to what you actually believe? How would your family feel if for decades those manipulations were propagated on anti-Christian sites, dishonoring your reputation, even after you had taken the time to rectify them, to write out and sign a letter explaining the truth. If even long after you had passed away, that lie about you lived on?

That's what happened in this case. A creationist who was deficient in integrity and ethics secretly recorded a conversation without permission, ripped it out of context, and disseminated lies about it that lazy creationist websites repost without putting in any effort to fact-check. This isn't about camp evolutionist vs. camp creationist. It's just about having decency and honoring the truth of what was actually said instead of stomping all over the legacy of someone who is dead and telling lies to further your own agenda.