Evolution or descent with modification?

[Aman777]

This bit has nothing to do with science based evolution theory. These two parts of your posts don't lead to each other, they are non sequitur.

Good. Changeable Science based evolutionary Theory is a false assumption of people who reject God's Truth in Genesis. Just because some changed the definition from changes within kinds over time in a population to the evil word "evolution" does not make it so. The false thinking of men has NO ability to change anything. It's a concept, a man-made idea, which is provably false with no power to change innocent animals into violent reasoning Humans.

Humans are animals, we are mammals and in particular primates.

Only to those who follow the changeable half-truths of Science. Most were brain washed as children. It's the only way to get them to believe Satanic Lies.

In your belief system, could we not be both animals AND god's children?

Of course not since We are God's children, first made and destined to have dominion or rule over every living creature when Jesus returns. Genesis 1:28

Being animals and mammals and primates does not dehumanise us. It joins us to the world of all living creatures. I think it is a beautiful thing.

Some had rather believe a Lie than the Truth. You don't seem to understand that Humans are NOT innocent because we have inherited the intelligence of God. A beautiful thing is teach our babies God's Truth, instead of the fables of men.

It doesn't make sense to reject evidence simply because you don't like the idea that we too are animals.
If evolution is the path that god took in creating humans, why would you reject god's beautiful path rather than stand in awe and wonder of it?

Because it's a Lie and sends many of our children to Hell? I'm sorry, but rejecting God's Truth in favor of mortal man's is not smart for anyone facing Eternity.

 

[Aman777]

You being sick and tired of people teaching something doesn't make those teachings false.

Amen, just as force teaching our babies that they are evolved animals doesn't make them animals. IF you would read Genesis, you would see that Adam, the first Human, was changed physically, when he sinned. He lost his image like God and was found in a body of sinful flesh, like animals. Does that mean that Adam evolved from an Ape? No, and Humans will regain our perfect bodies at the Rapture, thanks to Jesus.

If people are 'force teaching' that humans are 'nothing but evolved animals', they're doing it wrong. But I suspect you've exaggerated for emotional effect and/or due to emotional bias.

Teaching the Lies of the ToE to little children and thus offending those who believe in Jesus, carries the most severe punishment for Eternity. Mar 9:42 The punishment is so great, I don't like to think about it for anyone. If you want to know what the punishment is, read down two verses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Amen, just as force teaching our babies that they are evolved animals doesn't make them animals. IF you would read Genesis, you would see that Adam, the first Human, was changed physically, when he sinned. He lost his image like God and was found in a body of sinful flesh, like animals. Does that mean that Adam evolved from an Ape? No, and Humans will regain our perfect bodies at the Rapture, thanks to Jesus.

There are many different origin and creation myths, none of which have any literal credibility. They're just stories.

Teaching the Lies of the ToE to little children and thus offending those who believe in Jesus, carries the most severe punishment for Eternity. Mar 9:42 The punishment is so great, I don't like to think about it for anyone. If you want to know what the punishment is, read down two verses.

There are no lies in the ToE, just sincere attempts to describe and model the diversity of life and how that diversity came about.

Your ridiculous threats of punishment are as fanciful as your origin myths.

 

[Aman777]

There are many different origin and creation myths, none of which have any literal credibility. They're just stories.

That's because there is but one God whose Holy Word in Genesis agrees, in every way, with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus fact equals God's Truth.

There are no lies in the ToE, just sincere attempts to describe and model the diversity of life and how that diversity came about.

And some false notions that Humans (descendants of Adam) evolved from an innocent animal. They run and hide when you ask them to repeat their foolish notions like changing animals into reasoning Humans. When you show them, Scripturally, scientifically, historically and genetically, that they are wrong, they call you a kook while avoiding to tell us of the magical process by which mindless nature put God's superior intelligence into Apes.

Your ridiculous threats of punishment are as fanciful as your origin myths.

It's against the rules to threaten and it wasn't me who told you God's Truth, it was Jesus Christ. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 [URL='https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/17/2/s_990002']Luk 17:2 [/URL]Repeating it three times in Scripture is not to be ignored. You don't seem to know the difference between threatening and warning someone of their sure fate, according to God Himself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's because there is but one God whose Holy Word in Genesis agrees, in every way, with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus fact equals God's Truth.

And some false notions that Humans (descendants of Adam) evolved from an innocent animal. They run and hide when you ask them to repeat their foolish notions like changing animals into reasoning Humans. When you show them, Scripturally, scientifically, historically and genetically, that they are wrong, they call you a kook while avoiding to tell us of the magical process by which mindless nature put God's superior intelligence into Apes.

It's against the rules to threaten and it wasn't me who told you God's Truth, it was Jesus Christ. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 Repeating it three times in Scripture is not to be ignored. You don't seem to know the difference between threatening and warning someone of their sure fate, according to God Himself.

Meh, whatever.

 

[Queller]

What is interesting is that my view agrees Scripturally, scientifically, historically and genetically and no one can show me where I'm wrong in any way.

What would it take to show you that you are wrong? How would we falsify, for instance, your claim that Adam lived with Jesus for 13 billion years?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The definition of evolution is changes within species over time within a population.
That sounds a whole lot like:
God shows descent with modification within kinds over time within a population in Genesis.

The only difference I see is that evolution eliminates God from the equation. Amen?

Something happened since Adam and Eve; we can't all share the same blood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God did not write the Bible, men did. God did not translate it into English, other men did. The English translation you favour doesn't say what you claim it says.

Basically, you should take this ex-believer's word over yours because I know a lot more about it than you do.

If you are an agnostic (about spiritual things) how can you claim to know about spiritual things?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I do have a problem with someone who pretends the evidence is inadequate, or insufficient, or even - as some say - non-existent. Those people are either deceiving themselves, or knowlingly attempting to deceive others. That I do not respect, though I fear its utility.

Science hasn't presented the evidence that is asked for. We ask them the time and they tell us the weather. Or they tell us to go and study evolution, which of course indicates that they are unable to answer the questions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you are an agnostic (about spiritual things) how can you claim to know about spiritual things?

You do know that the Bible is not a spiritual thing, don't you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You do know that the Bible is not a spiritual thing, don't you?

Books on health are not 'healthy' either.

 

[tas8831]

Science hasn't presented the evidence that is asked for.

Had you considered the possibility that what you ask for is nonsensical or irrelevant?
If I ask you to prove Jesus was a 50-foot tall blue guy, would you be able to do so?

We ask them the time and they tell us the weather. Or they tell us to go and study evolution, which of course indicates that they are unable to answer the questions.

I would be happy to re-hash some of our exchanges - show me where you asked for evidence and where I did something like you claim.

I could point out that when you claimed that the aorta/gut sends impulses directly to the larynx to make vocalizations, I explained and rpeesented evidence as to why that is stupid, and your response was to link to a goofy woo site because you hoped it sort of supported your position (which it didn't). Or any number of time syou make absurd evolution-related claims and they were easily debunked - those are times I and others have suggested you read up on the subject.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Had you considered the possibility that what you ask for is nonsensical or irrelevant?
If I ask you to prove Jesus was a 50-foot tall blue guy, would you be able to do so?

I would be happy to re-hash some of our exchanges - show me where you asked for evidence and where I did something like you claim.

I could point out that when you claimed that the aorta/gut sends impulses directly to the larynx to make vocalizations, I explained and rpeesented evidence as to why that is stupid, and your response was to link to a goofy woo site because you hoped it sort of supported your position (which it didn't). Or any number of time syou make absurd evolution-related claims and they were easily debunked - those are times I and others have suggested you read up on the subject.

What percentage of believers of evolution actually understand it, would you say? Don't you think that they should be studying it first, before us unbelievers study it? They claim to believe it. Make them prove it. Or is their belief, based on faith that it is true sufficient? And isn't that some sort of fallacy that you should be concerned with?

 

[Speedwell]

What percentage of believers of evolution actually understand it, would you say?

A significant number, I should think; Most people who don't understand it don't really care about enough about it, one way or the other, to be called "believers."

Don't you think that they should be studying it first, before us unbelievers study it?

Those who wish to dispute the matter are the ones who should be studying it.

They claim to believe it. Make them prove it.

Why should a person who is indifferent to evolution be required to "prove" it?

Or is their belief, based on faith that it is true sufficient? And isn't that some sort of fallacy that you should be concerned with?

How could faith be construed as a logical fallacy?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why should a person who is indifferent to evolution be required to "prove" it?

I didn't imply that qualification.

How could faith be construed as a logical fallacy?

If disbelief from incredulity is a logical fallacy, why isn't belief without knowledge also a fallacy, a false belief?

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't imply that qualification.



If disbelief from incredulity is a logical fallacy, why isn't belief without knowledge also a fallacy, a false belief?

Who is "believer" in evolution?
A person who understands it and accepts it as a scientific theory is accepted? Surely.
A person who doesn't particularly understand it but does not dispute it because it works as a theory and produces useful results? I don't think I would all such a person a "believer."
A person who doesn't understand it and doesn't care one way or another because it doesn't affect his life? Definitely not a "believer."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who is "believer" in evolution?
A person who understands it and accepts it as a scientific theory is accepted? Surely.
A person who doesn't particularly understand it but does not dispute it because it works as a theory and produces useful results? I don't think I would all such a person a "believer."
A person who doesn't understand it and doesn't care one way or another because it doesn't affect his life? Definitely not a "believer."

Interesting point. I don't think most people give either argument much thought. But if one observes closely one would see that most people go about proving the bible to be very true regarding human nature. Can the same be said for evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting point. I don't think most people give either argument much thought. But if one observes closely one would see that most people go about proving the bible to be very true regarding human nature. Can the same be said for evolution?

Does the Bible provide us with insights into human nature? Of course it does. The theory of evolution? Not so much; but the one is not supposed to be a substitute for the other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does the Bible provide us with insights into human nature? Of course it does. The theory of evolution? Not so much; but the one is not supposed to be a substitute for the other.

Your behind the curve on this. Others here insist that every human thought, no matter how nuanced, is the result of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Your behind the curve on this. Others here insist that every human thought, no matter how nuanced, is the result of evolution.

LOL! Is that all you've got? A claim that you have no evidence for?