Did God use evolution to create life

[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?

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

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


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?

So, are you saying that those who hold to evolution also want to deny that Noah's ark was an actual historic event ?

The Bible would have no need to be so specific with dates if God was just telling a parable, the specific dates shows that this was an actual historic event.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Genesis 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Genesis 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

[pelathais]

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.
...

"No mechanism?" LOL. Richard Dawkins made his bones with the book "The Blind Watchmaker" almost 40 years ago when he demonstrated otherwise. And then, Dawkins was merely elaborating on many other previous and current research projects.

coadie and I sort of went around on this before, however he would never engage the material. He just resorted to ad hominem attacks. Consider the evidence of how the eye has evolved as evidenced within several living species of mollusk.



Some more help:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/r...of_the_eye.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_QH...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpa...eature=related

Originally Posted by BroGary

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.'"

Wherever you cut-and-paste your info from, BroGary, you are still going to have to THINK.

Fred Hoyle is no "evolutionist." We've already discussed this. He "concedes" nothing here. He is merely making his own flawed assertion. An assertion, by the way, that he made long before Watson and Crick discovered DNA and the components and physical properties of genes were understood for the first time.

Fred died before he could get completely up to speed on this. Don't make the same mistake he did. What do you think of the idea that our natural environment actually sorts molecules and atoms into specific patterns? And, that given the right natural conditions, the environment will actually "construct" amino acids and even proteins?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

The Christian biochemist Christian de Duve of Belgium won a Nobel Prize back in the 1980s for demonstrating this. He concluded that given the right conditions, life was "inevitable."

http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Dust-Ori...ion/0465090451

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"No mechanism?" LOL. Richard Dawkins made his bones with the book "The Blind Watchmaker" almost 40 years ago when he demonstrated otherwise. And then, Dawkins was merely elaborating on many other previous and current research projects.

coadie and I sort of went around on this before, however he would never engage the material. He just resorted to ad hominem attacks. Consider the evidence of how the eye has evolved as evidenced within several living species of mollusk.



Some more help:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/r...of_the_eye.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP_QH...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpa...eature=related

Wherever you cut-and-paste your info from, BroGary, you are still going to have to THINK.

Fred Hoyle is no "evolutionist." We've already discussed this. He "concedes" nothing here. He is merely making his own flawed assertion. An assertion, by the way, that he made long before Watson and Crick discovered DNA and the components and physical properties of genes were understood for the first time.

Fred died before he could get completely up to speed on this. Don't make the same mistake he did. What do you think of the idea that our natural environment actually sorts molecules and atoms into specific patterns? And, that given the right natural conditions, the environment will actually "construct" amino acids and even proteins?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

The Christian biochemist Christian de Duve of Belgium won a Nobel Prize back in the 1980s for demonstrating this. He concluded that given the right conditions, life was "inevitable."

http://www.amazon.com/Vital-Dust-Ori...ion/0465090451

Stages of growth is no proof of evolution, that is an invalid arguement. The odds of such complex things happening by chance are so astronomical as to make the idea of evolution downright silly.

You sure have fell for the Luciferian deceptions, and how they contradict the Bible show just how Satanic these deceptions are, but we know how subtle the Devil is.

The Bible is clear the Adam was the first human and he had no ancestors but was a direct creation of God.

How any christian can be made to believe that God is so weak that He had to rely on evolution instead of creating man fully developed and complete is very sad indeed.