Did God use evolution to create life

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?

You don't think God could do it?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You don't think God could do it?

The words "God" and "DO" suddenly remove the use of the word evolution.
The correct term is creation. Form shape as Jeremy says. It is fascinating how many more restrictions are built into the changes possible. Darwin thot it was an accident.




Allele and the frequency of one of the alleles is a/(n*N) tells us how often a family has a redheaded kid. But there are no new and unique hair coolours. Diploid genes grant a new number of chances but with reastrictions. Even junk DNA is not junk as once thought. Lot and Abrams stripe /spot heards were an example of deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

But we still aren't getting evolution. Definiotely do not see the high quantity of info added to the genome to cause novel structures.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is some more interesting info (with links :-)

.....However, it was once used to prove the age of the earth and all other things in it. But only in the past few decades has it been shown to be totally unreliable in determining the earth to be 14 plus billion years old.

Here is a link to a very long and technical article, but it is well worth the reading and concentration. It gives unmistakable proof that the earth falls within the biblical account record. (end of excerpt)

http://www.examiner.com/biblical-in-...nfirm-creation

.....The Epicureans were the evolutionists of the day! They typically held to a belief derived from Epicurus that there were no gods that intervened in the world. They believed that these gods, like men, were made of matter and that over long ages atoms, the basic component of all matter, gave rise to life and that life gave rise to higher life such as mankind. (end of excerpt)
(the apostle Paul would argue against evolutionists)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-evolutionists

.....All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in other words that they were "created." (end of excerpt)

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

Also read "five questions evolutionists would rather dodge":

http://www.designinference.com/docum...estions_Ev.pdf

.......Acts 17:18
Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.

In the greater context, we find Paul forced into a debate with Epicureans and Stoics. In fact, because they disagreed with him, they take him to Mars Hill (the Areopagus) to defend his views in front of the whole crowd of philosophers. So, Paul masterfully begins his defense, which has gone on to become the basis for creation evangelism.

The Epicureans were the evolutionists of the day!

(end of excerpt from link below)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-evolutionists

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

The words "God" and "DO" suddenly remove the use of the word evolution.
The correct term is creation. Form shape as Jeremy says. It is fascinating how many more restrictions are built into the changes possible. Darwin thot it was an accident.

No they don't remove the word. BTW you didn't answer the question. Could God do it or not?

Forget Darwin, I don't give a hoot what he thought. You're argument doesn't sound logical. It presumes God could not cause evolution to make all the various species His way.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You don't think God could do it?

So? Couldn't God cause variation?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So? Couldn't God cause variation?

We covered that. He said so in his scriptures. The scriptures the evolutionsts say are NOT to be taken literally. (v. 34) 'Agreed,' said Laban. 'Let it be as you have said.'

(v. 35) That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons.
Coat Color Alleles are not evolution. They are variation that already exists in the genome. Those coloration features are passed to offspring.


Drosophila melanogaster Shows us variation

The d melanogaster sequenced genome of 165 million base pairs has been annotated and contains approximately 13,767 protein-coding genes, which comprise ~20% of the genome out of a total of an estimated 14,000 genes.
We see high fecundity rates. 2,000 eggs per female. No one has found ones in the past that started developing novel structures. The variation is between male and female.

Just the eye.

PLCβ hydrolyzes phosphatidylinositol (4,5)-bisphosphate (PIP2), a phospholipid found in the cell membrane, into soluble inositol triphosphate (IP3) and diacylgycerol (DAG), which stays in the cell membrane. DAG or a derivative of DAG causes a calcium selective ion channel known as TRP (transient receptor potential) to open and calcium and sodium flows into the cell. IP3 is thought to bind to IP3 receptors in the subrhabdomeric cisternae, an extension of the endoplasmic reticulum, and cause release of calcium, but this process doesn't seem to be essential for normal vision.

Raghu P, Colley NJ, Webel R, et al. (2000). "Normal phototransduction in Drosophila photoreceptors lacking an InsP(3) receptor gene". Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience 15 (5): 429–45. doi:10.1006/mcne.2000.0846. PMID 10833300.

In common language, There are ways in which photoreceptive cell structures work. The enzymes to form the cells must be changed for some of the different eyes to operate.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

uhhhhhh Codie..... Who was the last man that everyone is a descendant of? It sure ain't Adam.

would you say this pretty much describes the Darwin synthesis theory?

The Gaia Hypothesis

In order to understand the nature of the All-Mother, we must first understand our own origins. Each of began our individual life as a single fertilized cell, or zygote. In the process of its innumerable divisions and multiplications, that cell kept dividing up and redistributing the very same protoplasm. That protoplasm which now courses through all of the several trillion cells of your adult body is the very same substance which once coursed through the body of that original zygote. For when a cell reproduces, the mother cell does not remain intact, but actually becomes the two new daughter cells. And this is why, no matter how many times a cell fissions in the process of embryological development, all the daughter cells collectively continue to comprise but one single organism. We may imagine that, should our cells have consciousness akin to our own, they may very well fancy themselves to be independent entities living and dying in a world that to them would seem to be merely an inanimate environment. But we know them to be in fact minute components of the far vaster living beings that we ourselves are.

Over four billion years ago, life on Earth began, as do we all, with a single living cell containing a replicating molecule of DNA. From that point on that original cell, the first to develop the awesome capacity for reproduction, divided and redividied and subdivided its protoplasm into the myriads of plants and animals, including ourselves, which now inhabit this third planet from the Sun.

But no matter how many times a cell fissions in the process of embryological development, all the daughter cells collectively continue to comprise but one single organism. All life on Earth comprises the body of single vast living being -- Mother Earth Herself

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Could God do it or not?

Could God contradict Himself?



31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Gary you haven't "found" any good information yet. And, you are supposed to include a link back to the original material. I Googled this article and found several sources - most of them kooks like:

http://prophetlady.wordpress.com/201...nst-evolution/

"The Prophet Lady" ... "A Mystic of God."

We're all still waiting for you to respond to the questions YOU raised about the "horse/donkey/mule" issue and how this could possibly be explained by Genesis 1 and 2.

Since then all you've done is post a bunch of wacko stuff from a Jihadist in a mental hospital and now "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God."

Originally Posted by BroGary

Sorry, but that is just your opinon it is not good info, and you are entitled to your opinion :-)

No need to apologize. Just don't quote "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God" and a Jihadist who did most of his "study" in a Mental Hospital.



Adnan Oktar

Those sources shouldn't even be "good enough" for you! Treat yourself better, Gary. You certainly deserve better.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creating Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

WHILE you are doing the cut-and-paste, highlight the URL in the Address Bar of your browse. Then, either RIGHT CLICK and select COPY or hold down the CTRL button and press " C " to copy the link.

Then add the link to your post of to the document that you are saving.

Have that link is sometimes a legal requirement for sites (like AFF) posting content from another site. At all times, it's just a good habit and promotes courtesy between web sites. It also helps the person doing the "cut-and-paste" contribution to NOT appear as though they're just rattling off a bunch of nonsense.