Evolution scientists...yeah, but creation scientists?

[rodyshusband]

If anyone is interested, please listen to this lecture series presented by Hugh Ross Ph.D.
The entire lecture runs about 70 minutes, broken down into 10 minutes segments.
Students of the sciences will find it particularly compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4

Thanks.

I might be interested. What is it about exactly?

Dr. Hugh Ross has a degree in physics and astrology. He explains how, why and roughly when the universe began; how the universe was formed; how the earth came into being and evolved to support life; early life forms; the beginnings of mankind; the flood; and God's plan for redemption. He uses science to support Genesis and answers questions. This is a thoughtful, in depth presentation, available at no charge on YouTube. I put the entire lecture series on my website, in order. As I stated, it is long but is broken down into 10 minute segments.
Dr. Ross is the founder of Reasons to Believe ministry (http://www.reasons.org).

I hope you find the time to watch and comment!

[JC333]

Thanks for the site and videos.

[jaquesb]

Hi there,

I'm new here, and this is probably not the right place to cary on with this conversation, but I will start one and then we can discuss it there.

Sarah, I want to talk to you about what you wrote.
You have to ask yourself one question when you are born again, and still believe in Evolution. And as a scientist with a degree, I believe you know the complete description of the evolution theory.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here goes. Evolution is the theory that every living thing descended from one common ancestor. The evolved through time from fish to mammels and birds and reptiles and back to fish. And man descended from an ape.

Now this is the question. Do YOU think we descended from apes? If you do, then we have a problem, and then somebody is lying. The Bible teaches us that we were made in GOD'S image. We are body, soul and spirit. Animals are body and soul. They don't have a spirit.

The evolution (I like to call it adaptation) that you described exist. There is no doubt about it. Everything adapt to fit better where they live. Does that mean they become something else? I can't agree, because if that is true, we have a big problem with bacteria and virusses, which you will know is probably the fastest "evolving" organisms on earth. What if a flu virus "evolve" into a HI virus. It will be chaos. Any living organism can adapt, and the genes can change, but the source DNA code is the same. The flu virus will always stay a flu virus. I'm sure that you can go back and never saw something becoming something else.

I am a creationist, more a YEC than Old Earth, but to me it doesn't really matter. The question I always have is, is why do people want to limit God. He can do anything. He can create a universe just like this one with one sentence, EXACTLY like it is now, and it will look like it was there for millions of years. Isn't that AWESOME. I don't see it as deception. I see it as ALLMIGHTY power to do ANYTHING He likes. He is not limited to our standards and our laws. He is above the Laws of nature. HE CREATED THE LAWS OF NATURE for crying out loud!!! Hallaluja. And even if the universe is 13.7 billion years old, so what. God is THE Almighty, and I stand in AWE to His Majesty.

The next question is, if we did descend from Apes, when did we receive our spirit? Do you really think God is so cruel to let the Cruel nature make us by change, and then He will give us spirit and make us his people? Why would Genesis then say that He made us out of clay if we descended from a ape, and why would it state that He made the man sleep to make the woman.

Anyway. This post already is longer than I intended it to be.

Enjoy your day, and God bless
Jaques Burger

[zoegirl]

What makes you think that God couldn't have used the framework of primates and changed it to make us and in HIS image?! Cou;dn't GOd have simply made us in HIs image with the physcial framework cahnged to an upright, large-brained, organism with His image?

[jaquesb]

zoegirl, I think you miss the point. Off course God could have used a lot of the DNA information of a Primate to form a human. That is not my problem. We share DNA with a LOT of other living organisms, the same as I would write an application, and use a lot of that application to write a new one, which might look the same, but is a whole lot different in its operation. Look at Microsoft. Mostly all there programs look the same, but they don't operate the same. My problem is that evolutionists believe that it happened by chance. A non-spirited animal became a spirit being, just like that (off course over millions of years)

[zoegirl]

Absolutely, I agree that it didn't happen by chance


But I wouldn't have a problem (and I don't think that she was saying it happened by chance; however, not sure about that) if God Directs the process.

[JC333]

Absolutely, I agree that it didn't happen by chance


But I wouldn't have a problem (and I don't think that she was saying it happened by chance; however, not sure about that) if God Directs the process.

So is that the difference between Progressive creationism and Theistic evolution?

[Kurieuo]

No.

In Day-Age and Young-Earth creation God directly and intimately creates life like a potter working with clay.

Theistic evolutions still believe God directs a natural evolutionary process whether God wound it up at the beginning or intervenes along the way.

[cslewislover]

@ cosmicb: your post seems self-aggrandizing (and perhaps I'll get in trouble with the mods for saying that). My response without using "faith" (you make it dirty - sorry) is Jesus. I've had personal experiences with Him and know he's real. You could seek Him and see what happens.

I just realized that this post has nothing to do with the topic.

[JC333]

I just realized that this post has nothing to do with the topic.

Fixed it for ya. Feel free to continue discussing if you feel led (is it lead or led) to.

EDIT:Feel free to take discussion in any direction. Original question has been answered.

[Vanlore]

IHowever, there are things learnt in science that can't be denied just because my fellow believers are uncomfortable or offended by them. For instance every year the bacteria responsible for colds mutate and evolve and so remain contagious and able to slip past our immune defences and make us sick, and thus reproduce themselves successfully. If this were not true then we would get the cold only once and then gain immunity permanently, the bacteria would soon die out with no host to live in. The world around us is constantly changing in many complex and wonderful ways, this is only to God's glory and yes creation does beg the hand of a creator, at no time in my studies was evolution viewed as the ultimate source of creation itself rather the process of diversification and adaptation. Spirit's revelations.

Hi everyone, I'm new here but just wanted to comment about bacteria, I have herd that they do not really evolve in the since but rather they loose information instead and that changes there shape or something and it makes them weaker then they were but not detected. It's kinda like saying I can get out of hand cuffs if I cut my hands off or that the police can not get my finger prints if I burn my fingers. At least I herd this some place I think it was from that old Kent Hovid guy but not sure. . But I do think it is that way because of sin.

[zoegirl]

BUt this is still microevolution. Whether or not a change makes them weaker (antibiotic resistance for instance can make them shorter lived if I recall correctly) still menas that they were selected for in that environment. There is nothing wrong with this idea.

I have little or no respect for Kent Hovind. I would be wary of using him for any arguments.

[Vanlore]

Thanks zoe, I am still trying to learn other pov as much as I can. I get skeptic about what is fact and what is not in evolution because I have heard things stated as fact about evolution and then have herd it comes down to opinion so now I am on a quest to find out what exactly are the real facts and interpretations so I hope to hear different pov in these forums.

[Vanlore]

BUt this is still microevolution. Whether or not a change makes them weaker (antibiotic resistance for instance can make them shorter lived if I recall correctly) still menas that they were selected for in that environment. There is nothing wrong with this idea.

I have little or no respect for Kent Hovind. I would be wary of using him for any arguments.

I found a interesting post and wanted to quote it on the topic we was talking about.

"Now as for evolution, check any biology book, evolution is evolution. There is no micro, no macro. Evolution is simply the change in observed traits over time in response to localized environmental pressure." So were did the word macro come from?

[Vanlore]

BUt this is still microevolution. Whether or not a change makes them weaker (antibiotic resistance for instance can make them shorter lived if I recall correctly) still menas that they were selected for in that environment. There is nothing wrong with this idea.

But doesn't the loss of information count against evolution and kinda stand up for thermodynamics. Loosing information over time is not good in the long run am I right?