I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[The Barbarian]

... ignores the evidence provided by JudgeRightly that the early church fathers of the first few centuries of church history believed that the earth was young, and even rejected naturalistic explanations of the creation of the earth.

YE creationism is not merely "the Earth is young." Augustine, relying on the evidence of his time thought it was, but argued that such things should not be locked down as dogma, since new evidence might change our understanding. And most Christians followed his advice. By the 18th century, Christians were (as I showed you) aware that the Earth was quite old. The great Baptist evangelist C.H. Spurgeon referred to millions of years of Earth history, and the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was OE creationism. Only in the 1950s, did the Seventh-Day Adventists spread their new doctrine to other fundamentalists.

You're confusing YE creationism, with the error that the Earth is young. That's only one part of this new doctrine that was invented in the last century.

Again, BECAUSE PAUL SAID that death entered through sin, there could not have been death prior to Adam.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam ate, and lived on physically for many years thereafter. Either God was wrong, or it was not a physical death that he was speaking of.

No point denying what scripture says, JR.

Is it not a belief of some theistic evolutionists (not all, of course) that Adam and Eve were a group of about 200 or so ape-like creatures?

Not that I know of. Is it not a belief of some YE creationists (not all, of course) who agree with ICR founder Henry Morris that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people?"

As you know, God was not referring to a physical death when He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. If He was, Adam would have physically died that day. You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?

It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.

You're bloviating again instead of talking about the subject matter.

It's precisely on the subject. If you didn't want to talk about it, you should not have brought it up.

 

[7djengo7]

As you know, God was not referring to a physical death when He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. If He was, Adam would have physically died that day. You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?

When you say, "Adam would have physically died that day", to what period of time (from when, to when?), and to how long a period of time are you referring by your phrase, "that day"?

When you say "Adam would have physically died that day", what, exactly, do you mean by "physically die"? Of what would you say Adam's "physically dying" consisted?

How long would you say is the maximum length of time it takes a human to "physically die", from the time he/she starts "physically dying" to the time his/her "physical death" has completely run its course? How long a period of time would you say it took Adam to "physically die"? When, say you, did Adam start "physically dying", and when, say you, did Adam stop "physically dying"?

 

[7djengo7]

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.

So, why do you deny that Adam died the day he ate from the tree? Why do you deny that which, as you just admitted, God told Adam?

Ah, I know: because you're a Bible-despiser. Because you hate God's word.

 

[7djengo7]

That's why you should let God be true, and every man a liar.

The Barbarian is pleased to pretend to let God be, somehow, non-literally true, while he is also eager to make God out to be literally a liar.

 

[7djengo7]

Because the creation account in Genesis isn't literal, and you shouldn't be trying to use it that way.

In other words, you have just told us that the creation account in Genesis is meaningless.

 

[Alate_One]

In other words, you are saying you don't know anything for sure except that it's common descent. I hope you realize you are also claiming to know what perfect DNA is.

If you're saying predesigned, "perfect" DNA can't be identified then you're admitting the YEC idea has no testable basis at all.

Viral parts becoming part of human DNA are laughable without a designer to control how the virus enters the system without destroying the system.
That viral parts come with advanced usable functions for humans is laughable unless that was the design.
The similarities to virus parts as if viruses invaded the human system is tenuous at best.

Not at all. They look like viruses, act like viruses. They're certainly pieces of DNA that self replicate and don't serve any other obvious purpose. Some organisms have lots of them and some have few. And it doesn't seem to have an obvious pattern. LINES and SINES are transposons and the human genome is bloated with them.

What do you mean by hyperevolution?

Creating huge numbers of species (say all of big cats from a genetic "cat kind") from two individuals 4,000 years ago.

Does adaptation exist and how does it work? Is it different than mutation+natural selection?

Adaptation is one of my least favorite words as it is so nebulous as to have little meaning. If you mean genetic change in a population over time which improves the species' survival. That's just a version of evolution.

Do you mean dead plants came to life from the mud or that ferns turned into oaks?

I dunno it's your magical flood idea.

What is the current explanation from creationists? Or do you only read what common descentists say about the flood?

In my experience, creationists don't talk about plants other than trees going through multiple sediment layers. Heck, most "evolutionists" hardly talk about plant evolution. Bunch of plant ignorers. O_O

 

[The Barbarian]

You'll never get anywhere with trolls, but they do make good batting practice, don't they?

 

[Stuu]

In your picture, we see it said that mammals are "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands." Now, if I'm not mistaken, you take your picture to somehow be about inheritance. So, from what would you say "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands" inherited fur or hair and milk glands?

I think you should consider this from the fantasy world of Answers in Genesis:

The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 “kinds” of dinosaurs. Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on. After the Flood, the animals were told to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world.

They think this picture is about inheritance, at least back to family or order. I appreciate you are citing adaptations at the level of class, but that's only one more level up, and AiG have set an arbitrary stop point at order/family because of the dimensions of a mythological boat.

Stuart

 

[Alate_One]

They think this picture is about inheritance, at least back to family or order. I appreciate you are citing adaptations at the level of class, but that's only one more level up, and AiG have set an arbitrary stop point at order/family because of the dimensions of a mythological boat.

Stuart

This is one of the points at which I said "check please" as far as accepting YECism. YECers hate evolution until they think it can rescue the flood. Then evolution becomes magically easy and ridiculously fast.

Of course starting with the genetic diversity of two individuals would make much of any evolutionary change virtually impossible in the short term. Which is all the time that's left, a mere four thousand years.

Modern Cheetahs have the genetic diversity of essentially two individuals, and they're virtually clones. And that is actually thought to have occurred a few thousand years ago. Why don't all the other species on earth have that same pattern? :think:

 

[Stuu]

This is one of the points at which I said "check please" as far as accepting YECism. YECers hate evolution until they think it can rescue the flood. Then evolution becomes magically easy and ridiculously fast.

Of course starting with the genetic diversity of two individuals would make much of any evolutionary change virtually impossible in the short term. Which is all the time that's left, a mere four thousand years.

Modern Cheetahs have the genetic diversity of essentially two individuals, and they're virtually clones. And that is actually thought to have occurred a few thousand years ago. Why don't all the other species on earth have that same pattern? :think:

Well don't forget the 'fall' which appears to be spectacularly mutagenic.

I wonder if YECers with organ transplants refuse anti-rejection drugs...

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

This is one of the points at which I said "check please" as far as accepting YECism. YECers hate evolution until they think it can rescue the flood. Then evolution becomes magically easy and ridiculously fast.

That's really funny considering that evolutionists keep making the earth older and older to help support "evolution".

 

[Wick Stick]

Because you say so?

No, because it's true.

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal, you lose the ENTIRE REST OF THE BIBLE'S MEANING.

So if one short section of one book turns out to be not-literal (not untrue, mind you, just not literal), then the whole book and 65 other books written mostly by different authors, on different topics, and across thousands or years suddenly lose all signification? From a logical perspective, that's patently ridiculous. Who sold you that line of crap? Aesop wrote fables... Should I discard all of philosophy and medicine because of it? It's the same thing.

Ideas and beliefs have consequences. When those consequences undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ, such beliefs should be questioned thoroughly, and are likely incorrect.

This particular belief doesn't undermine the gospel. It helps to explain it.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

In other words, you have just told us that the creation account in Genesis is meaningless.

No, I've just told you that you have the meaning wrong. It has a meaning, just not the one you think.

 

[7djengo7]

I think you should consider this from the fantasy world of Answers in Genesis:

The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 “kinds” of dinosaurs. Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on. After the Flood, the animals were told to “be fruitful and multiply on the earth” (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world.

They think this picture is about inheritance, at least back to family or order. I appreciate you are citing adaptations at the level of class, but that's only one more level up, and AiG have set an arbitrary stop point at order/family because of the dimensions of a mythological boat.

Stuart

I guess you're going to have to take merely your own word for it that "[AiG] think this picture is about inheritance", inasmuch as the AiG article to which you linked me says no such thing.

The KPCOFGS classification scheme, being a tree of porphyry, is not about inheritance, as it is not about a progression of time. Every individual is a member of a species at exactly the same time it is a member of a genus, a member of a family, a member of an order, a member of a class, a member of a kingdom, and a member of a phylum. Like Alate_One, you, too, are obviously incapable of discerning the difference between a tree of porphyry classification scheme, on the one hand, and a family tree, or tree of descendants, on the other. Should any of my fellow YECs (whether they be from AiG, or anybody else) happen to grant you that the KPCOFGS classification scheme is about inheritance, I have no qualm, whatsoever, contradicting them right along with you regarding that, particular falsehood. It has nothing to do with inheritance, nor ancestry, nor descent.

Anyway, thus far, you, Alate_One, and every other Darwinist, have stonewalled against the question I asked in my post, #854 (to which question you have now reacted by stonewalling, and spamming me with your post, #868):

From what would you say "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands" inherited fur or hair and milk glands?

Really, man, try to tell me: from what do mammals inherit fur or hair and milk glands, if not from mammals?

 

[The Barbarian]

My first question is based on the above. Do you believe that the present natural world is a clear evidence of God's creative power and wisdom and divinity? If you as an evolutionist say yes to this, why is it that many evolutionists use evolution to claim that God does not exist or is not needed?

Can you name some? Even Richard Dawkins admits that science cannot rule out God. Indeed, he admits that God could exist.

For example, everything happened by chance and the survival of the fittest.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Survival of the fit is the antithesis of chance.

When I look at the creation I have highlighted in my mind the fact that every species of plant, bird, animal and man can reproduce and I suggest that this is remarkable.

Those that couldn't, left no descendants. So it's kind of expected.

Take the smallest seed of a tree and 20 years later we have a full large copy of the original tree. Same with birds and animals and humans, but with these you need a male and female.

That's true of many trees, too.

Unless you can inform me in simple terms how evolution can bring about this established result, then with these two aspects I will continue on my path and leave you and others to your ideas, discussion and thread.

The evidence shows that sex was initially optional. Bacteria, for example, do have sexual recombination, called "conjugation." But it's optional. Many invertebrate animals are similar, in that they can reproduce sexually, but also asexually. In our case, it's no longer optional. We can talk about how this evolves in different phyla if you like.

 

[Right Divider]

Can you name some? Even Richard Dawkins admits that science cannot rule out God. Indeed, he admits that God could exist.

So he's converted from atheist to agnostic? When did this happen?

The Wikipedia page for him says this:

Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist.

Please document his conversion for us.

 

[7djengo7]

No, I've just told you that you have the meaning wrong. It has a meaning, just not the one you think.

Thanks for letting me know that, whereas Moses wrote, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very GOOD," you take Moses to have meant, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very NOT-GOOD." Unlike you, in your error, I, and others take Moses to have meant "good" when he wrote "good".

Why do you despise God's word?

 

[7djengo7]

No, because it's true.


So if one short section of one book turns out to be not-literal (not untrue, mind you, just not literal), then the whole book and 65 other books written mostly by different authors, on different topics, and across thousands or years suddenly lose all signification? From a logical perspective, that's patently ridiculous. Who sold you that line of crap? Aesop wrote fables... Should I discard all of philosophy and medicine because of it? It's the same thing.


This particular belief doesn't undermine the gospel. It helps to explain it.

Jarrod

How does your idiotic belief--that when God said the evening and the morning were the first day, He did not mean that the evening and the morning were the first day--help to explain the gospel?
How does your idiotic belief--that Moses, when he said that what God created was "very good", meant that what God created was very not-good--help to explain the gospel?

Thinking in the crappy way you think, you obviously have discarded all of philosophy, and, instead, have come to cherish the "wisdom" of men. Why do you despise logic?

 

[Alate_One]

That's really funny considering that evolutionists keep making the earth older and older to help support "evolution".

Since when did anyone "keep making the earth older"? Are you talking decades ago? Hundreds of years?

 

[Alate_One]

Really, man, try to tell me: from what do mammals inherit fur or hair and milk glands, if not from mammals?

Those are the evolutionary innovations that define mammals.

What exactly are you trying to question?

Mammals inherited air breathing, backbones, four limbs and a jaw from their ancestors, the reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Some subset of reptiles evolved fur and milk glands, these then became mammals, and passed those characteristics on to all the mammals that followed.