Dinowhat?

[Doveaman]

Well, I don't mean to seem flippant, but doesn't it seem like he did, in fact, cause humans and chimps to descend from a common ancestor?

No.

If Adam's cousin was a bonobo, it doesn't make Adam any less the first created man, does it?

No, but it does make the Bible read like science fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Adam's cousin was a bonobo, it doesn't make Adam any less the first created man, does it?

The Bible says otherwise:

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.

Are you saying that God's cousin is a bonobo as well?

Adam, being called "the son of God", means he was a direct creation of God, made in His likeness and image; and is, in effect, an evolution-pwning statement.

 

[Gishin]

God did it. Case closed.

You're wrong. A Wizard did it. Says so in my book.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're wrong. A Wizard did it. Says so in my book.

Who wrote your book?

 

[Zalman]

The Bible says otherwise:

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.

Are you saying that God's cousin is a bonobo as well?

Adam, being called "the son of God", means he was a direct creation of God, made in His likeness and image; and is, in effect, and evolution-pwning statement.

I guess if you interpret Genesis to mean that God literally took "clay", and rearranged the atoms to make a fully-grown man, you're not going to be persuaded by evolutionary biology. But Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't really jive, do they? You've got to go deeper.

Of course God didn't literally "mold" the clay in his hands and make a man -- God doesn't have hands! So, how did he do it? Well, given that a day for man is a thousand years for God, why not millenia, even? Why not take the "clay" that was the primeval soup and, over the course of millenia -- through fish and amphibians, and reptiles, and shrews and monkeys and apes -- decide, at some point, that this man, Adam, would be the first "ensouled" man?

In short, how can we, finite beings we are, hope to understand the very process of creation at the "hands" of an infinite God, when we can't even understand the physics underpinning gravity?

 

[Gishin]

Who wrote your book?

The wizard obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

-- God doesn't have hands!

-- He doesn't!?

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Isaiah 40:12 ¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

The wizard obviously.

You mean one of these?

Deuteronomy 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

 

[Zalman]

-- He doesn't!?

Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Isaiah 40:12 ¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

You don't really believe that the Lord has anthropomorphic "fingers", "hands", a "back", a "face", etc., do you? That's really like re-forming the Lord in our image, isn't it?

The "form" of God is incomprehensible to the finite mind. In calculus, it's convenient to draw a three-dimensional figure on a cartesian x,y,z, grid, because that's the only way to express it on a 2-d piece of paper, but you wouldn't actually argue that the 3-d figure IS the 2-d grid representation, would you?

 

[Doveaman]

You don't really believe that the Lord has anthropomorphic "fingers", "hands", a "back", a "face", etc., do you?

The whole body parts thing was God's idea, not ours:

"Then the LORD said [to Moses], "There is a place near Me where you may stand on a rock. When My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen." (Ex 33:21-23).

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't really believe that the Lord has anthropomorphic "fingers", "hands", a "back", a "face", etc., do you?

No -- He has theomorphic fingers, hands, back, face, etc.

 

[VehementiDominus]

The Bible says otherwise:

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.

Are you saying that God's cousin is a bonobo as well?

Adam, being called "the son of God", means he was a direct creation of God, made in His likeness and image; and is, in effect, an evolution-pwning statement.

At least it would be if it was true.

Until it can be proven demonstrably true, beyond any reasonable doubt, I'm left with no option but to conclude that you're talking out of your gluteus maxiumus.

 

[Zalman]

No -- He has theomorphic fingers, hands, back, face, etc.

Okay, so he has a theomorphic bladder too, then, yes? And it gets full? So where is the Divine urinal? You can see how silly the idea of interposing human anatomy on the Lord is?

I just think we're being a bit presumptuous to say, "okay, I 'get' God". If you had to explain quantum mechanics to your four year-old, you would do it by means of analogy, simile, metaphor, and physical imagery that would only be at best a dim shadow of the "truth" of quantum mechanics.

So it is with divine revelation. Genesis is "true" to the extent that it's the best we can do to express divine truth in "human" language.

Incidentally, are you sure that "yad", in the Hebrew of 3,000 years ago, meant "hand" in precisely the sense you believe yourself to understand?

 

[Zalman]

At least it would be if it was true.

Until it can be proven demonstrably true, beyond any reasonable doubt, I'm left with no option but to conclude that you're talking out of your gluteus maxiumus.

If there is not God, there is no human "soul", and it doesn't matter what did or did not evolve from what. Humans, chimps, tree shrews, newts, pebbles -- all fungible.

So stipulated.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least it would be if it was true.

Until it can be proven demonstrably true, beyond any reasonable doubt, I'm left with no option but to conclude that you're talking out of your gluteus maxiumus.

My, my -- you must deal only in extremes then.

With that attitude, no one would have went looking for Amelia Earhart or Judge Crater.

 

[Doveaman]

Okay, so he has a theomorphic bladder too, then, yes? And it gets full? So where is the Divine urinal? You can see how silly the idea of interposing human anatomy on the Lord is?

I just think we're being a bit presumptuous to say, "okay, I 'get' God".

Do you believe in eternal life after death for the faithful?

 

[VehementiDominus]

If there is not God, there is no human "soul", and it doesn't matter what did or did not evolve from what. Humans, chimps, tree shrews, newts, pebbles -- all fungible.

So stipulated.

Well, then, proving the "human soul" exists, beyond reasonable doubt, would be a good first step towards proving God exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

So where is the Divine urinal?

Have a good day.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, then, proving the "human soul" exists, beyond reasonable doubt, would be a good first step towards proving God exists.

Can you prove God does not exist?

 

[Gishin]

You mean one of these?

Deuteronomy 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Blasphemy.