Is evolution a fact or theory?

[GenemZ]

Oh, and DNA analysis shows that the prediction was indeed correct.

DNA analysis also says we must have evolved from the chimp, too. Right?

God has a big parts bin.

Your lawnmower can share some of the same parts with a Mercedes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the evolution of whales from ungulates:
Oh, and DNA analysis shows that the prediction was indeed correct.

DNA analysis also says we must have evolved from the chimp, too. Right?

Nope.

God has a big parts bin.

Nope. Doesn't need one. He did something a lot greater than that. As you might know, engineers have learned that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. They are now using random mutation and natural selection to do things they couldn't do by design. You don't need a parts bin, when you can use evolution. Would you like to learn how they do it?

Your lawnmower can share...

God doesn't need parts. Instead of "design" and parts bins, He uses natural processes He created. And as you see, that works better.

Hence, the same parts in mammals can be a manipulative organ like a hand, a running organ like a horse hoof, a wing, a fin, or a digger. Instead of cobbling together something from a parts bin, nature does His will by modifying what's already there to new uses.

Again, God is far smarter and more effective than creationists would like Him to be.

 

[GenemZ]

Nope. Doesn't need one. He did something a lot greater than that. As you might know, engineers have learned that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. They are now using random mutation and natural selection to do things they couldn't do by design. You don't need a parts bin, when you can use evolution. Would you like to learn how they do it?

GMO is not evolution.

God doesn't need parts. Instead of "design" and parts bins, He uses natural processes He created. And as you see, that works better.

With the original created creatures God used many similar "parts" involving many of those created. Evolution did not create the many variables of eyes and lungs, for instance. (yeah... I am still trying to reason with you)

Hence, the same parts in mammals can be a manipulative organ like a hand, a running organ like a horse hoof, a wing, a fin, or a digger. Instead of cobbling together something from a parts bin, nature does His will by modifying what's already there to new uses.

Its beginning to sound more like Dr. Frankenstein... not evolution. Nor, safe science.

Again, God is far smarter and more effective than creationists would like Him to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Doesn't need one. He did something a lot greater than that. As you might know, engineers have learned that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. They are now using random mutation and natural selection to do things they couldn't do by design. You don't need a parts bin, when you can use evolution. Would you like to learn how they do it?

GMO is not evolution.

Maybe you don't know what "GMO" means. This has nothing to do with GMO. They are called "genetic algorithms"; engineers merely copy nature, using random change and natural selection to optimize whatever it is they are working on.

With the original created creatures God used many similar "parts" involving many of those created. Evolution did not create the many variables of eyes and lungs, for instance.

That's a testable claim. For example, in mollusks, we can see the entire range of eyes, from simple pigmented spots to complex lensed eyes, and everything in between. We have the same thing with lungs. For example, if you don't keep the water moving in a goldfish bowl, the fish will gulp air. It absorbs the oxygen in it's throat. Some other fish have pouches in the throat, to increase the surface area, and thus the efficiency. Some have branches in those pouches to further increase the lung capacity, and a few have complex lungs. All of which evolved in a series of steps, most of which still exist in living fish.

The evidence shows your new doctrine is wrong.

Hence, the same parts in mammals can be a manipulative organ like a hand, a running organ like a horse hoof, a wing, a fin, or a digger. Instead of cobbling together something from a parts bin, nature does His will by modifying what's already there to new uses.

Its beginning to sound more like Dr. Frankenstein... not evolution.

That's because you have no idea what evolution is. It's not about stuff appearing de novo; it's about existing stuff being adapted to new purposes. Like the way the same structure (legs) became modified to all sorts of new uses.

 

[GenemZ]

Maybe you don't know what "GMO" means. This has nothing to do with GMO. They are called "genetic algorithms"; engineers merely copy nature, using random change and natural selection to optimize whatever it is they are working on.

So they can stimulate and induce what takes place in micro evolution? Are they working with DNA manipulation?

That's a testable claim. For example, in mollusks, we can see the entire range of eyes, from simple pigmented spots to complex lensed eyes, and everything in between. We have the same thing with lungs. For example, if you don't keep the water moving in a goldfish bowl, the fish will gulp air. It absorbs the oxygen in it's throat. Some other fish have pouches in the throat, to increase the surface area, and thus the efficiency.

Looks like God provided for certain fish if they would get cut off into shallow, stagnant water, perhaps. But, again. These latent abilities had all been designed before hand. It was not developed as the problem arose. That latent ability was just waiting to be manifested for the right time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Maybe you don't know what "GMO" means. This has nothing to do with GMO. They are called "genetic algorithms"; engineers merely copy nature, using random change and natural selection to optimize whatever it is they are working on.

So they can stimulate and induce what takes place in micro evolution? Are they working with DNA manipulation?

No. They aren't working in biological systems at all. They are taking observed natural processes, and using them for things like optimizing diesel engines. They start with a feasible solution, randomly vary the parameters, and then save only the ones that are better than the first solution. Then they repeat. Random variation and natural selection converges on an optimum solution.

God was right, after all.

Barbarian observes:
That's a testable claim. For example, in mollusks, we can see the entire range of eyes, from simple pigmented spots to complex lensed eyes, and everything in between. We have the same thing with lungs. For example, if you don't keep the water moving in a goldfish bowl, the fish will gulp air. It absorbs the oxygen in it's throat. Some other fish have pouches in the throat, to increase the surface area, and thus the efficiency.

Looks like God provided for certain fish if they would get cut off into shallow, stagnant water, perhaps.

He did it by creating universe in which living things become more fit by natural selection. It works better than anything we can imagine.

But, again. These latent abilities had all been designed before hand.

At the moment of creation, those rules were built into nature to do His will. That's how it works. God didn't spend a few days working on how to make lungs. He just made life with the ability to change under selection.

We're not talking some little Canaanite nature god here; we're talking about the Creator of the universe. He had it all covered when He established this one.

 

[GenemZ]

At the moment of creation, those rules were built into nature to do His will. That's how it works. God didn't spend a few days working on how to make lungs. He just made life with the ability to change under selection.

Omniscience is not simply knowing all things. He is always knowing all things, past, present, and future simultaneously at all times.

What ever God designed to survive (via evolution), He already knew every little detail needed ... for every moment in time. I essence.. there was nothing to figure out for God by needing to build in safeguards of how you see evolution unfolding. For, He purposed it down to every nano second of time exactly how things are seen "evolving" before He even created the first of its kind.

We're not talking some little Canaanite nature god here; we're talking about the Creator of the universe. He had it all covered when He established this one.

As He will also establish the next one. Just as He had established the prehistoric ones that no longer exist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
At the moment of creation, those rules were built into nature to do His will. That's how it works. God didn't spend a few days working on how to make lungs. He just made life with the ability to change under selection.

Omniscience is not simply knowing all things.

Yep. Don't see a point here, though.

What ever God designed to survive (via evolution), He already knew every little detail needed ... for every moment in time. I essence.. there was nothing to figure out for God by needing to build in safeguards of how you see evolution unfolding. For, He purposed it down to every nano second of time exactly how things are seen "evolving" before He even created the first of its kind.

Then why is it so hard to accept the way He did it?

 

[GenemZ]

Then why is it so hard to accept the way He did it?

Because you were not there to tell Him how to do things, yet you expound the Bible as if you were.. For, what you express about God's Word is not there, and what you claim bypasses passages of Scripture. It seems, its a means to remain in good favor with the accepted mainstream, secular, scientific thinking.

When the intent of certain passages were given.. you simply responded that "its not found in the Bible." Even after you were shown, that is.

It makes the other person wonder if your locked and loaded determination to win has put blinders on your mind. That's how it comes across. I showed you things that are not YE Creationist thinking that proved your theory wrong, and you attempted to negate what I said by telling me YE Creationists are not correct. Denial response?

When you do that? It made me wonder if you even bothered to read my responses that took you outside of the comfort zone when dealing with YE Creationists. It was a generalized rebuke of them, not what I said.

Yes... They do have some illogical conclusions that scientific data has exposed. Yes. But, in doing so too many secularists have leaped to their own theories that are equally illogical when viewed in how the Word of God answered the question. The question that both sides get wrong.

"God confounds those who must Wite Out parts of Scripture in order not to find themselves on the wrong side of a peer review."

God tests the intellectual integrity of the scientist. The Word of God when accurately exegeted is that test.

Jesus is the Scientist of scientists. He created science, and its why He created scientists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because you were not there to tell Him how to do things, yet you expound the Bible as if you were..

I'm just showing you what He actually said.

For, what you express about God's Word is not there, and what you claim bypasses passages of Scripture. It seems, its a means to remain in good favor with the accepted mainstream, secular, scientific thinking.

As you see, nothing in Genesis contradicts anything science has found so far. How could it? He made nature, after all.

When the intent of certain passages were given.. you simply responded that "its not found in the Bible."

I understand that you want it to be there. But as you see, it's not. It makes the other person wonder if your locked and loaded determination to win has put blinders on your mind. That's how it comes across.

I showed you things that are not YE Creationist thinking that proved your theory wrong, and you attempted to negate what I said by telling me YE Creationists are not correct.

If I've failed to show you anything that I told you was wrong, I'd be pleased to revisit it with you. If you seriously think so, I'm sure you'll show us.

 

[GenemZ]

hahhahah.... Enjoy! Here, have another one before I go.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you ever think of any that I failed to address, come on back and we'll talk about them.

 

[GenemZ]

No thanks.... you just ignore way too much as you push forward with what you want others to believe.

 

[The Barbarian]

No thanks.... you just ignore way too much as you push forward with what you want others to believe.

The offer is open. If you find anything, let us know.

 

[GenemZ]

The offer is open. If you find anything, let us know.

How many times will it take? Is there a magic number? Repeat five times? Twenty times? I already showed you about the Bible evidence that God had created other worlds before the one we now live in. Yet? You kept pushing that those fossil remains is what we evolved from. Fifty times?

Should I just cut and paste until you finally see it?


When they don't see? They either do not want to see. Or? Can not see. I can't make you see what you do not want to.

Should I try again.... and again? and again?

 

[The Barbarian]

I know you believe it. I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't say it.

There was one creation, from which all other things appeared in their time. There were not sequential creations of entire flora and fauna; we see that there are species that bridge any such possible sequence in the fossil record.

 

[GenemZ]

I know you believe it. I'm just pointing out that the Bible doesn't say it.

That right there proves I am right about you. The Bible does say it.

Go argue with that book written by a scientist. He was no YE creationist.
ACOL - ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The fact that the Bible (when read and understood in the original languages) reveals that our current world was preceded by a prehistoric world. It was not some idea that was invented popped up after Darwin became known.

Jewish commentators made the discovery, but their early literature

(the Midrash for example) reveals that they had some intimation of

an early pre-Adamic catastrophe affecting the whole earth.

Similarly, clear evidence appears in the oldest extant Version of the

Hebrew Scriptures (the Targum of 0nkelos) and some intimation may

be seen in the "punctuation marks" of the Massoretic text of Genesis

Chapter One. Early Jewish writers subsequently built up some

abstruse arguments about God's dealings with Israel on the basis of

this belief and it would seem that Paul in his Epistle to the Corinth-

ians is at one point making indirect reference to this traditional

background.


A few of the early Church Fathers accepted this interpretation and

based some of their doctrines upon it. It is true that both they and

their Jewish antecedents used arguments which to us seem at times

to have no force whatever, but this is not the issue. The truth is,

as we shall see, that the idea of a once ordered world having

been brought to ruin as a consequence of divine judgment just

prior to the creation of Adam, was apparently quite widespread. ​

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1​

 

[2tim_215]

What gets me is regardless of what the earth's actual age is (no one can really know it) it does not disprove God's existence nor does it impact the Bible's truth and certainly does not prove evolution.

 

[GenemZ]

What gets me is regardless of what the earth's actual age is (no one can really know it) it does not disprove God's existence nor does it impact the Bible's truth and certainly does not prove evolution.

When one is truly saved it is not what he learns after he is saved that makes him saved. What we learn after we are saved either gives us clarity, stability, and an understanding of what we have been transported into.... Or, if the teaching is not correct.. leaving us with varying degrees of emotional instability and confusion.

On the other hand.. Religious people can not know they are saved. They simply look for some system to learn and master to feel good about themselves if they can gain a sense of achievement.

 

[The Barbarian]

What gets me is regardless of what the earth's actual age is (no one can really know it) it does not disprove God's existence nor does it impact the Bible's truth and certainly does not prove evolution.

Yep. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has nothing to say about any of those things. They are all true, and we know this for other reasons. But an ancient Earth has nothing to say about any of that.