Rapid Adaptation
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
everready
New member
Barbarian says "He says it came from non-living matter." that verse doesn't say that, you said that.
everready
I just showed you what He said. You ignored Him, because you don't like what He said.
If you'll admit that much, why not admit the way He did it? He says life came from non-living matter. If He chose to created it like that, why does that bother you so much?
Well, let's take a look...
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?
C'mon. I'd like to hear this.
everready
New member
And I'd like to hear what you think this world was like before sin entered Gods creation.
everready
Alate_One
Well-known member
Nice Dodge.
Because you say so. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but "where did life come from" is also immaterial to a discussion of evolution. Evolution only deals with life once it already exists and has genetic material that can be passed on. As far as evolution is concerned, God could have created the first life.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
No you can't.
Asking the question; "Where did the Creator who describes Himself as having no beginning and no end come from?" is redundant.
Asking the question; "Where did the earliest life forms which had a beginning come from?" is not at all redundant.
6days
New member
Alate_One said:
Doesn't the Bible say so?
You are partially correct.*Alate_One said:
But Stellar evolution leads to chemical evolution which leads to biological evolution.*
As an evolutionist, you can plug God into that; or leave Him out...either way it contradicts His Word.
The Bible tells us that God directed and spoke creation into existence. God formed man from the dust breathing life into him, then woman was created from man's rib. In six days, God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them.*
Yep, that is what it says. Further indication that Christianity is no different than any other religion. Simply factually incorrect.
6days
New member
Science proves Darwin wrong....
"That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I fully admit .*.*. I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. (Darwin 1859, 108–09)"
June 3, 2015
"Abstract
In this study, I show that mitochondrial DNA relationships within extant families depict linear rates of speciation, a finding consistent with a mechanism of speciation that involves an originally created heterozygous allele pool fractionated by genetic drift........"
https://answersingenesis.org/natura...s-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-kinds/
"That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I fully admit .*.*. I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed. (Darwin 1859, 108–09)"
June 3, 2015
"Abstract
In this study, I show that mitochondrial DNA relationships within extant families depict linear rates of speciation, a finding consistent with a mechanism of speciation that involves an originally created heterozygous allele pool fractionated by genetic drift........"
https://answersingenesis.org/natura...s-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-kinds/
Barbarian asks:
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?
C'mon. I'd like to hear this.
(Everready realizes he's messed up and tries a diversion)
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?
C'mon. I'd like to hear this.
Nice try. C'mon. Let's see what you really think about that. Why are you so embarrassed to admit what God tells you?
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?
C'mon. I'd like to hear this.
(Everready realizes he's messed up and tries a diversion)
God says life came from the Earth. So you think the Earth is not non-living matter? Is it that you think it's alive, or is it that you think it's not matter? Or both?
C'mon. I'd like to hear this.
Nice try. C'mon. Let's see what you really think about that. Why are you so embarrassed to admit what God tells you?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Barbarian thinks that the Bible says life came slowly from soil (the ground) and that is consistent with evolution.
He does not believe that God created quickly using the same basic elements He had already used to create the earth as a whole so that life would be able to assimilate nutrients from it.
To be consistent must also believe that birds came slowly from water. Gen 1:20KJV
Actually, many scientists who acknowledged Darwin's theory, thought that he was wrong about pacing of evolution. Huxley, one of his greatest supporters, thought he was wrong about that.
Darwin thought that acquired traits might be passed on, which is almost always wrong (epigenetics works for a few generations). Darwin thought that inhertitance was like mixing blood, something that caused his theory a good deal of difficulty until Mendel showed it was particulate, explaining why new traits can persist in a population.
But of course, a linear rate of mDNA evolution is no more consistent with creationism than with anything else. The kind of hyperevolution that creationists think went on after the Ark landed to produce hundreds of thousands of new species would have required new species popping up monthly. Seems odd that no one would have considered that to be remarkable enough to write about it.
So this is just a creationist copying findings of real science and pasting it together on a website known to be deceptive (examples on request).
Darwin thought that acquired traits might be passed on, which is almost always wrong (epigenetics works for a few generations). Darwin thought that inhertitance was like mixing blood, something that caused his theory a good deal of difficulty until Mendel showed it was particulate, explaining why new traits can persist in a population.
But of course, a linear rate of mDNA evolution is no more consistent with creationism than with anything else. The kind of hyperevolution that creationists think went on after the Ark landed to produce hundreds of thousands of new species would have required new species popping up monthly. Seems odd that no one would have considered that to be remarkable enough to write about it.
So this is just a creationist copying findings of real science and pasting it together on a website known to be deceptive (examples on request).
As Darwin pointed out, if God just poofed the first organisms into being, that would be OK, too. But He does say that they were brought forth by the Earth.
In general, it's a bad idea to add things to scripture that are not there.
In reality, both Earth and water were responsible. Most Christians accept that this is a poetic way of explaining how God created nature to produce life.
6days
New member
I wonder if theistic evolutionists are looking for fish with feathers...they already have flying fish...all they need now is feathers.
Rock solid, in fact.
That's the nature of a definition; it should not change to suit the situation.
Nope.
We can easily show that certain animals are part of the same kind given the right data. It's a bit more challenging to show that they are not of the same kind, but you've ignored the point: A definition is not a classification system. Demanding that it be so is just your way of avoiding a rational discussion.
It has a function. It gives evolutionists a word to use that is malleable enough to fit any situation while being established enough to give the veneer of respectability.
In fact, the word is useless in a scientific setting.
Nope. Polar bears and Grizzlies are not the same species, but they are of the same kind.
Definitely. And you know why.
One does not have twice the information content of the other.
way 2 go
Well-known member
bad idea to take away from scripture too
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
literal
the earth rotates giving us nighttime and daytime
the only way to get evening and morning is by the earth rotating
1 rotation of the earth = 1 day
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Lon
Well-known member
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Evolution, and apparently a lot of 'poetic license' Catholics seem to miss the 'God' part. It wasn't just the ground doing the creating in this story, and in fact, is the object of creation, not the creator. It is a nonparticipatory inanimate object. Ground/earth 'can't' do anything.
Like taking 'poetic' license with what isn't there????
:nono: You inadvertently or dishonestly made earth and water the creators.
Joke: Evolutionist scientists
asserted life could start without God and challenged that they could make life without Him to prove the point.
God accepted the challenge and started with dirt (earth) and water. The evolutionists gathered dirt and water also and God stopped them and said, "Oh no, you make your own dirt ex nihlo."
For this joke, you MUST understand which is the actor and which are the inanimate props/stage.
Nothing happens without the Actor. Nothing. You may agree with all of this, but you inadvertently trip over your own tongue trying to make the furniture on the stage, the main actor or even a supporting actor. THIS is the problem with evolutionary science and always will be. Christians CANNOT accept that poor language. It'd be like denying the Lord God when asserting we have inalienable rights from our Creator.
I assert, strongly, "You cannot be an accurate scientist if you do not accept Colossians 1:16-17 as God being the Actor of creation because there are no other actors." Science becomes a poor manual for setting up the stage and misses the actor and the story. It is nothing more than a behind the scenes manual but it becomes useless if it doesn't set the stage for the Actor. The furniture will get in the way of the intent and purpose of it being there in the first place. There is NO reason for furniture if God isn't center stage. A manual suggesting otherwise (science books) becomes/is completely wasted and useless without realizing that only God can act.
Imo, your language, without Him, is a sin. Darwin's work was a sin.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
That is why Darwin sinned. He exchanged. What does it mean to exchange? To leave God out of the equation. The world does not know any better. The Christian (including a Catholic?) has to know better.
Last edited:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I wonder if theistic evolutionists are looking for fish with feathers...they already have flying fish...all they need now is feathers.
This fish is poised for the next evolutionary leap!
Helicopter Fish!
He's having a bad rotor day at the moment.
6days
New member
And...Eve from a rib?Barbarian said:
Barbarian... you refer to*Genesis 1:24*And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done"
Do you believe that verse?
Do you believe verse 3 that tells us God created light before He created our sun and the star?
Do you believe verse 9 which tells us the earth was covered in water before dry land appeared?
Do you believe verse 16 that God created our son the day after he created the plants?*
Do you believe verse 21 which tells us that God created the Whales before the land animals?
Etc...... or do you just believe the one phrase from verse 24 and ignore everything else?