Did God use evolution to create life

[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

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.

[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 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

[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 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.

[pelathais]

coadie has asserted that the earth's magnetic field had at one time been so powerful that it would have "fried" all live that would have been present on the earth.

There is no evidence to support this supposition. coadie makes reference to Young Earth Creationist claims (debunked in detail here) that take the strength of today's magnetic field, its rate of decay and extrapolate that back billions of years. The result is a magnetic field so strong that it would be a hazard to life. But does this even make sense?

To get a field that strong we would need to increase the mass of the earth exponentially. No system of energy generation can produce more energy than allowed by the total mass of the system. coadie knows this, on his "good days." To get a magnetic field sufficient to satisfy the YEC demands the size of the earth along with its iron-nickel core would need to be as large as Jupiter.

Jupiter does produce a magnetic field that is injurious to life if exposed long enough. However, if Earth had Jupiter's mass magnetism would be the least of our worries. The crushing gravity of such a mass would certainly inhibit life. Also, a planet that big would hold onto a tremendously dense atmosphere - one like Jupiter's current atmosphere.

But, the earth was never the size of Jupiter, so this model fails. Another problem with the YEC methodology is that it ignores the dynamics of earth's REAL magnetic field.

Rather than being injurious, the earth's magnetic field actually helps to protect life from the sun's harmful radiation.



What about the decay coadie mentioned? This is a natural CYCLE that the earth has gone through for at least the past 200 million years (the oldest sea floor crust that we use to measure this cycle is "just" 200 million years old - about 225 million - the older parts having been recycled through Plate Tectonics).



As the Atlantic sea floor spreads and pushes the Americas further away from Europe and Africa (at about the rate of two inches per year), new molten lava is deposited along the undersea Atlantic Ridge. While still molten, the iron in this iron rich basaltic rock aligns itself according to the current alignment of the magnetic poles.

We can see from the alignment of the iron along the sea floor that the magnet poles have shifted and varied at differing rates that at first appeared random. However, with further studies a complex pattern was discerned that related to the "Levy Distribution" found in probability statistics.

The bottom line? The underlying presumption of the Young Earth Creationists that the earth's magnetic field is a stable phenomena that has decayed at a steady and given rate is simply wrong. As wrong as anyone could be about something. Just look at the evidence.

[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

Some very good info very well put I found:

A Short Summary Of Fundamental
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution
...

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."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Some very good info very well put I found:

A Short Summary Of Fundamental
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

Sometimes it is said that the fossil record shows a sudden generation of species at random points in time throughout the fossil record, and that such data poses a challenge to the theory of creation just as much as it does to the theory of evolution.

However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently.

Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods, i.e., the destruction of Satan’s pre-Adamite kingdom on earth before the creation of Adam and Eve, and then later in time, the destruction of Adam and Eve’s descendants except for Noah and his family.

Moreover, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility and/or death. Therefore, we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life-forms, perhaps even new species; the Bible only limits changes in life-forms to basic “types” or “kinds.” That is why, for example, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat mutate into a horse, no matter how much time you allow in the evolutionary equation.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

(5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

Now, as just another poster the issue I have with this is the convenience you have of cutting and pasting and expecting that to argue for you...as though Pelathius or others have to respond to each point. Are you able to back up each point in a debate?

BTW posts like this, if they are from a source need to give credit and a link