- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,103
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Explain yourself, what is so disgusting about saying that Tasmanian aborigines are fully homo sapiens?
What else would they be, Tom?
I'm even happy with "believe evolution is not the whole story and/or is wrong, but not try to make up science to back up my beliefs".And that brings us (surprisingly enough) to the OP. Given that nothing in the Bible says God didnt create using evolution, why not accept both the order of creation specified in the Bible, and the method of creation specified by the evidence God left in the world? In short, as TricksterWolf suggested, why not stop attacking science to make it reflect your personal beliefs, and instead simply believe there is more to our origins than science can show?
You do know know that all humans are homo sapiens right?
Just in case you thought we thought of them as less than human or something stupid like that
Tasmanian Aborigines are fully homo sapiens.
India as a whole? No. Certain populations of India (for example many of the populations in rural India)? Yes. India does not contain a homogenous culture. Certain subpopulations of India (especially in the cities) are very advanced. Some or not.
I have no idea AV, please tell me. What is so disgusting about calling Tasmanian aborigines fully homo sapiens, because that is exactly what they are. Do you know what the term "Homo sapiens" means?What else would they be, Tom?
There is a difference between "poor" and "primitive". Poor people do not necessarily live in a primitive culture. With "primitive" I refer to having "primitive" beliefs, cultural traditions etc.Where I come from, we call that "poor" --- not "primitive".
Maybe he has it confused with homo sexualI have no idea AV, please tell me. What is so disgusting about calling Tasmanian aborigines fully homo sapiens, because that is exactly what they are. Do you know what the term "Homo sapiens" means?
Given that nothing in the Bible says God didn’t create using evolution, why not accept both the order of creation specified in the Bible, and the method of creation specified by the evidence God left in the world?
How do you know Jesus interpretted it literally? How do you know he wasn't just using a well-known fictional story to make a point?Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.
My point is that both evolution and Genesis 1 can be literally correct. Since God stands outside time (and is omnipotent), He could have created plants using evolution prior to creating the sun. Or do you really think God is limited to the chronological order of events imposed by the very time stream He created?Because the two are mutually exclusively. Genesis 1 was meant to be interpreted literally, as Jesus did, and not metaphysically, as Tolkien would.
How do you know Jesus interpretted it literally? How do you know he wasn't just using a well-known fictional story to make a point?
My point is that both evolution and Genesis 1 can be literally correct. Since God stands outside time (and is omnipotent), He could have created plants using evolution prior to creating the sun. Or do you really think God is limited to the chronological order of events imposed by the very time stream He created?
Um, okay. It is observed as an on-going process today. It wouldn't exist as a scientific theory if it wasn't.Let's just say, for the sake of your example, that you're right.
In that case, evolution ended on Day Six, and should not be observed as an on-going process today.
By any analysis of the history of the Bible, Jesus wrote none of it.
Um, okay. It is observed as an on-going process today. It wouldn't exist as a scientific theory if it wasn't.
Then you totally and utterly deny reality.And I totally disagree that evolution is observed today; and before you ask --- I make that statement based on by belief in creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?