Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

[46AND2]

"Species" is the latin word used when they translated the Bible from Hebrew into Latin. At times the word genus is used. Science tends to use the Latin word, not the Hebrew word.

What does that have to do with you defining a kind as organisms able to reproduce?

 

[joshua 1 9]

And yet no where in that passage does it say "this is the DNA evidence of Adam." It's a claim. Stop presenting it as evidence, since it is not evidence.

We know the Bible is true and Science confirms that the Bible is true. People have the witness and the testimony of Science and the Bible. We also have the witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit of God. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse and denial can not be used as an excuse. This is what we call a glass alibi. When people bring their glass alibi with them on the day of judgement their glass alibi will shatter at the throne of God and be worthless to present them any sort of a defense.

Deu 17:6 "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We know the Bible is true and Science confirms that the Bible is true. People have the witness and the testimony of Science and the Bible. We also have the witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit of God. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse and denial can not be used as an excuse. This is what we call a glass alibi. When people bring their glass alibi with them on the day of judgement their glass alibi will shatter at the throne of God and be worthless to present them any sort of a defense.

Deu 17:6 "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."

No. The Bible is not a scientific text, it is not a historical text. It is a religious text and a religious text ONLY.
It is not ignorance of the Biblical law. It is a statement of a fact: the Bible is worthless as a scientific text.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What does that have to do with you defining a kind as organisms able to reproduce?

I can not define what a Kind is. Nor does science know what a Species is. Accords to Vines:

akin to ginomai, "to become," denotes (a) "a family," Acts 4:6, "kindred;" Acts 7:13, RV, "race" (AV, "kindred"); Acts 13:26, "stock;" (b) "an offspring," Acts 17:28; Rev. 22:16; (c) "a nation, a race," Mark 7:26, RV, "race" (AV, "nation"); Acts 4:36, RV "(a man of Cyprus) by race," AV, "of the country (of Cyprus);" genos does not mean "a country;" the word here signifies "parentage" (Jews had settled in Cyprus from, or even before, the reign of Alexander the Great); Acts 7:19, RV, "race" (AV, "kindred"); Acts 18:2,24, RV, "by race" (AV, "born"); 2 Cor. 11:26, "countrymen;" Gal. 1:14, RV, "countrymen" (AV, "nation"); Phil. 3:5, "stock;" 1 Pet. 2:9, RV, "race" (AV, "generation"); (d) "a kind, sort, class," Matt. 13:47, "kind;" in some mss. in Matt. 17:21, AV, "kind;" Mark 9:29, "kind;" 1 Cor. 12:10,28, "kinds" (AV, "diversities"); 1 Cor. 14:10 (ditto). See BEGET, B.

<2,,5449,phusis>
among its various meaning denotes "the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing," and is translated "kind" in Jas. 3:7 (twice), "kind" (of beasts etc.), and "(man)kind," lit., "human kind." See NATURE, NATURAL.

Notes: (1) The indefinite pronoun tis, "some, a certain, one," is used adjectively with the noun aparche, "firstfruits," in Jas. 1:18, "a kind of." (2) In 1 Cor. 15:37, RV, "some other kind" (AV, "some other grain") translates a phrase which, lit. rendered, is "some (one) of the rest (loipos)." (3) In 2 Cor. 6:13, "(for a recompense) in like kind," RV, (AV, "in the same"), is, lit., "(as to) the same (recompense)."

 

[joshua 1 9]

the Bible is worthless as a scientific text.

That is not true. The Bible can be used to confirm if your science is true or not. That is why Charles Lyles theory stands and Darwin's theory failed. This takes a deeper more mature understanding and most of the people here do not even have an elementary understanding of the Bible. "I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready," 1 cor 3:2 Still Darwin opened the door and people have worked out the theory for him and that is why we have theistic evolution today.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is not true. The Bible can be used to confirm if your science is true or not. That is why Charles Lyles theory stands and Darwin's theory failed. This takes a deeper more mature understanding and most of the people here do not even have an elementary understanding of the Bible. "I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready," 1 cor 3:2 Still Darwin opened the door and people have worked out the theory for him and that is why we have theistic evolution today.

No, you cannot be more wrong. The reason why theistic evolution exists as a concept is because people have seen that the theory of evolution DOES stand the test and that the Bible does not match up with what God's creation ACTUALLY shows us.
Just because you do not understand evolution and seem to have no actual desire to learn what evolution ACTUALLY says, does no mean that you have the power to say that evolution is wrong.

 

[46AND2]

I can not define what a Kind is. Nor does science know what a Species is. Accords to Vines:

Then why did you try?

So a kind is something that is able to reproduce itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What would a third grade level understanding of the Bible be?

Third grade in the Kids Bible school is close to their grade level in public school. They have to be ready to go onto the next grade level. We actually start them when they are one year old. If they can march and sing they are ready to learn. When they are ready to pass onto the next level then they pass to the next level class.

We had a contest once of how many Bible verses the sunday school students could memorize. For every verse the people had to give one dollar for missions. The student then got sponsors. As it turned out some of the students were able to memorize over 300 verses. People were not happy to have to pay $300 for the pledge but they paid it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Bible does not match up with what God's creation ACTUALLY shows us.

You could not be more wrong. I have already demonstrated that skeptics, scoffers & infidels do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible. They simply do not know anything about the Word of God.

People interpretation or understanding may not "match up" but that is no reflection on the Bible. This is only a reflection on their lack of understanding.

 

[46AND2]

I have already demonstrated that skeptics, scoffers & infidels do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible.

You have demonstrated no such thing. On the other hand, I have pointed out you taking things in the Bible out of context.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Or go yell at your high school teachers for not doing so.

They threw me out of High School because my side burns were longer then the bottom of my ears.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There's no evidence. Its just a theory that was widely accepted.
Why are their still monkeys if we supposedly came from them? . . . .
.

Because we only came from some of the early monkey-like creatures, the others went on to become modern monkeys

Do you really think this is a devastating critique of evolution theory? I need to know, so I can properly pitch my arguments to your ability to understand things.

 

[46AND2]

What passage was that?

Leviticus 15, when you said that the passage with running water was talking about general skin infections, despite the fact that this doesn't make sense in context. The previous chapters had already dealt with skin issues, and the rest of chapter 15 is clearly about genital maladies, which is what the verse speaking of running water was dealing with.

 

[Cearbhall]

Third grade in the Kids Bible school is close to their grade level in public school. They have to be ready to go onto the next grade level. We actually start them when they are one year old. If they can march and sing they are ready to learn. When they are ready to pass onto the next level then they pass to the next level class.

That doesn't really answer my question, but ok.

I went to parochial school all the way up, but I can't for the life of me remember what was in the third grade curriculum for religion class. I imagine that kids who only get it once a week don't learn much, though.

They threw me out of High School because my side burns were longer then the bottom of my ears.

Well there's the problem, then.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I went to parochial school all the way up, but I can't for the life of me remember what was in the third grade curriculum for religion class. I imagine that kids who only get it once a week don't learn much, though.

Do they even give you religious training? Your doing good if you learn the catechism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Problem is, you never support your claims.

Why don't you tell me what you are talking about because I give you tons of science to support my so called claim. Only I am not making a claim, I am just saying that science verifies that the Bible is accurate and true. Because you do not see that for yourself then I give you a few examples to show you what I am talking about and to get you going. Truth can not be taught, people have to discover truth for themselves. To be a Christian means to have a relationship with God. Head knowledge is not good enough. You may as well try to convince me that my wife does not exist to try and say God does not exist. Because He is just as real to me as she is. In fact if it were not for God I would not even be alive and we would not be having this conversation.

You can work this either way. If you think there is no support for the Bible then produce evidence that that Science contradicts the Bible. Many people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by trying to falsify the Bible. Perhaps people do not understand the Love of God. Those who know God would never want to live life apart from God and apart from the Love of God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Leviticus 15, when you said that the passage with running water was talking about general skin infections,

We were working on understanding that passage together. People need to discover truth for themselves. We can not teach truth, we can only help people to discover it for themselves.

 

[Shemjaza]

your

I don't understand.

Frankly, I don't see how any of your posts refutes the statement there were Avian Dinosaur that shared anatomical traits with "winged fowl", or that prehistoric aquatic reptiles (terrible sea creatures) were not the predecessors of land dinosaurs, which is exactly what I posted in reference to Genesis 1:21.

All the ancient sea creatures not derived from land animals I'm aware of, who predate large land dinosaurs weren't particularly large. Not compared to some of the later creatures related to plesiosaurs, crocodiles or mammals anyway.

 

[46AND2]

We were working on understanding that passage together. People need to discover truth for themselves. We can not teach truth, we can only help people to discover it for themselves.

Well we were, until I demonstrated the context of the passage, then you kinda went silent.

 

[stephen583]

All the ancient sea creatures not derived from land animals I'm aware of, who predate large land dinosaurs weren't particularly large. Not compared to some of the later creatures related to plesiosaurs, crocodiles or mammals anyway

No ancient sea creatures were originally derived from "land" animals. That statement is scientifically absurd. Life on this planet began in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago, and eventually crawled out of the sea onto land as the first amphibians. Those creatures evolved on land, and some of them, like the plesiosaurs, dolphin and whales then returned to the sea. Sheesh ! Read any modern science book, it's right there in black and white.

The Bible says exactly the same thing. Life began in the seas, not on land. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20). Are you pretending to be obtuse by claiming life began on land with your ridiculous unscientific statements, or what ?! It's not scientific and it's not biblical either !

What does the original size of anything, have do with anything ? Genesis 1:20 doesn't say, "Let the waters bring forth the LARGE moving creature" does it ?!... Duuuh !

"Religion without science is lame, and science without religion is blind"

(Quote Albert Einstein) and Romans 1:20 as well. "The invisible things of God... from the creation of the world have been clearly SEEN and are revealed according to WHAT HAS BEEN MADE". Of course if you can't see that, it guess it means you're blind !