Did God use evolution to create life

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

You need to cut and past from wiki.


Yesterday you proved to me you couldn't quote the bible or other posters with accuracy.


If this is true, you are saying the bible is false.

There were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today,

More from wiki.



The darwinist apologists say the bible is a lie. Adam the first human male with descendants living today and eve the original woman with descendants living today lived tens of thousands of years apart.

This is how they peddle false doctrine and say evolution is true, the bible is false and there was death before Adam.

Is wiki article true or false?

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

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

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

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
No Adam was the first man.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
No Adam was the first man.

Yep, Adam was indeed the very first man, he had no human father or mother, he was created directly by God as a fully complete human.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Yep, Adam was indeed the very first man, he had no human father or mother, he was created directly by God as a fully complete human.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

Good point, since the Bible shows there was no death before Adam, then IF Adam had any ancestors they would still be alive since they would not have inherited Adam's sin nature and the death that went with it. (of course we know Adam had no ancestors)

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Good point, since the Bible shows there was no death before Adam, then IF Adam had any ancestors they would still be alive since they would not have inherited Adam's sin nature and the death that went with it. (of course we know Adam had no ancestors)

That wiki link yesterday point blank said Eve the Mitochondrial Matriarch was before Adam.
Putting that together, Eve and children according to the Wiki were having sex with apes 45,000 years before Adam.

The atheist drivel to get God out of the equation. Man was created in the image of God and the hedonist wants the libertty that apes had in the jungle. When a Theistic Evolutionist demands we came from apes, they are saying apes are like God.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is so much doctrine in so few verses. By Adam sin entered. There was no death before Adam.
You gave a great list of conflicts the ToE faces. They have unprovible canned responses for most of them.

I can provide a lengthy list of anatomic details that show differences between man who is bipedal and diifferent than apes and not a single one has ever seen an ape anatomy that was similar to the human anatomy or even close.
Almost zero evolutionists have ever worked with live humans in a surgical setting.

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

In spite of this admission, Darwin clung to his theory when he should have rejected it because the formation of the eye by natural selection is just not plausible!

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.

By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down.

Probability says 'no' to evolution
Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

In spite of this admission, Darwin clung to his theory when he should have rejected it because the formation of the eye by natural selection is just not plausible!

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.

By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's theory has broken down.

Probability says 'no' to evolution
Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"

The eye issue. I had used the eye argument for a couple of years before I knew darwin had mentioned it and other Creationists became aware.

There are a few pairs of cranial nerves involved with vision. Most people think only of the optic nerves. It is impossible for the eye and complex vision functions to evolve in time for an animal to find and eat food before starving.

I don't care how loud they get, there is no eye soft tissue to find from way back to support their crackpot notions of eyespots evolving to vision systems. Fossils only leave bones.

Darwin in todays terms was stupid. Ignorant.

He started medical school and dropped out. I don't blame him. anesthesia hadn't been developed and procedures like amputations were extremely violent. Just simple knee work today is done under general because of the use of a tourniquet.
With generals, now we and even very young students can be taught human anatomy and physiology.
Now the point is, without surgery, no one could see how these systems worked on a live patient when they are asleep. Craniotomies can be done under local by deadoning the skin, of course burr holes and removing a bone. Then we can do stereotaxic surgery and learn about functionality of different parts of the brain.

The irreducible complexity of breaking vision into a brain, optic nerve and the eye, they were created by God and work together. No parts can be eliminated. And the sorcery behind evolution calls for mutations. ooops, vision system mutations cause blindness. Animals with blindness are eaten by predators. Bats are the exception. There is nothing close to a mammal that is similar to a bat. It even has intricate sonar. You have dead bats waiting for sonar to evolve.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

In spite of this admission, Darwin clung to his theory when he should have rejected it because the formation of the eye by natural selection is just not plausible!

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

"

The next issue is the Flood. All these Old earth evolutionists butcher the first chapters of Genesis. The flood is a crisis. The boat can't hold the 4 million species they say it needed.

They say there was no Noah. That means they say God didn't say this

Ezekiel 14:14
Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

They say the story is not litteral so the coming of the son of man is equally not literal.

44.Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

45.Luke 17:27
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

All means all. If the flood didn't destroy them all, then not all unsaved will be destroyed at the rapture?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The next issue is the Flood. ...

No. The "next issue" is for you to address the dozen or so questions that I have asked you. You haven't even responded to my debunking of the way you fumbled the Plank Constant earlier this evening.

Do you concede the point?