Did God use evolution to create life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Many Christians accept evolution (theistic evolution they call it). It's certainly not a matter of one's salvation or even heresy. There's many unknowns that we are free to speculate.

My primary concern with brothers who espouse one of the views of theistic evolution is the idea of direct creation. I believe direct creation to be essential for the whole idea of Imago Dei and to fit Gen 1:26.

But it's unfortunate when we create dogma in areas where there is such uncertainty.

For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older (and ultimately biblically based) doctrine of species fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience."

If we study genetics, we see stasis. If we believe Darwin, we can't have species replicated the same way again and again with DNA.

There is gnashing of teeth by evolutionists when we say man did not evolve from unclean beasts or apes.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Evolution and the Bible do not agree.

If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.

Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.

Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.

I'm dying to hear the faulty science in evolution.

[coadie]

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[19]

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument

It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument

It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.

It sounds to me more like he set you straight than contradicted himself... Notice the word watertight?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'm dying to hear the faulty science in evolution.

Nice pun.

The crackpot theory of evolution actually says in the beginning life formed from non life. (abiogenesis) Not only did it form itself, it devised internally a scheme to multiply and self replicate. Science claims experiments must be observable. This formation of life from non life has never been observed.

Darwinism also claims survival of the fittest or the stronger killing the weaker and coupled with mutations and selection, new species cause themselves.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It sounds to me more like he set you straight than contradicted himself...

You are also wrong. It is true the fossil records do not show the transitional species that Darwin said we would find in 150 years. Darwin said if we didn't find the transitionals, his theory was wrong.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

Nice pun.

The crackpot theory of evolution actually says in the beginning life formed from non life. (abiogenesis) Not only did it form itself, it devised internally a scheme to multiply and self replicate. Science claims experiments must be observable. This formation of life from non life has never been observed.

Darwinism also claims survival of the fittest or the stronger killing the weaker and coupled with mutations and selection, new species cause themselves.

Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to be true before it can be true because they are two separate theories that deal with two separate things.

Everything about us that makes us a species is governed by genetics. How much would your genetics have to change before you would stop being human? Well, with only a 1% change you might end up being a chimp.

We know that genetic changes and variations do occur. So given that the question now becomes, is there any natural limit to how much an organisms DNA can change? It shall be the Creationists job as scientists (if they really are) to find if such a limit exists and what that limit is and what causes that limit to exist. If no limit exists then you cannot say that evolution is impossible because it would be very possible without some limit on genetic change.

[coadie]

"A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.

Today the leading spokesperson for evolution and atheism is Richard Dawkins.

The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide. … 2

When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.

One thing these evangelists for Darwin and atheism have in common is mocking genesis from the first verse onward.

The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell, said it was the atheist's despair in life that becomes " most gloomy" because what we do in this life has no consequences thus no significance and therefore ALL roads lead to the same ignoble death.

His book "Why I am not a Christian" is riddled with misconceptions re: Christianity. He did not look very diligently into the the Bible's tenets.

[coadie]

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed

But as a paleontologist, Gould doesn't have experience with living soft tissue. Just a few remnants of skeletal bones.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to be true before it can be true because they are two separate theories that deal with two separate things.

Everything about us that makes us a species is governed by genetics. How much would your genetics have to change before you would stop being human? Well, with only a 1% change you might end up being a chimp.

We know that genetic changes and variations do occur. So given that the question now becomes, is there any natural limit to how much an organisms DNA can change? It shall be the Creationists job as scientists (if they really are) to find if such a limit exists and what that limit is and what causes that limit to exist. If no limit exists then you cannot say that evolution is impossible because it would be very possible without some limit on genetic change.

Bump for coadie.