Early Man....Question

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
You didn't answer the question. Are all of what was listed in the first post of this thread, created in the image of God?

Does God have a physical image? and how much does He look like me?

In your conversations with Him, brother in Christ, have you asked Him?

Surely you've asked Him, since He tells us that He created man in His image?

 

[Meshach]

You didn't answer the question. Are all of what was listed in the first post of this thread, created in the image of God?

I was implying that the bones that fallible man finds burried in the earth are catorgorized and labeled because of their presupposed imagination of what fallible man wants them to be . There is, and always will be controversay or different stories to what they really are.The stories will ALWAYS be filled with would have, could have and might be's. They are in fact , either ape, monkey, lemur or human. Man however is the only one of these that was created after God's image. Image in this sense not neccessarly meaning looks like.

 

[brinny]

I was implying that the bones that fallible man finds burried in the earth are catorgorized and labeled because of their presupposed imagination of what fallible man wants them to be . There is, and always will be controversay or different stories to what they really are.The stories will ALWAYS be filled with would have, could have and might be's. They are in fact , either ape, monkey, lemur or human. Man however is the only one of these that was created after God's image. Image in this sense not neccessarly meaning looks like.

you should'a said that from the gitgo.

I agree.

 

[troodon]

In your conversations with Him, brother in Christ, have you asked Him?

Surely you've asked Him, since He tells us that He created man in His image?

No, I've never asked Him. What's your opinion on the subject?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
In your conversations with Him, brother in Christ, have you asked Him?

Surely you've asked Him, since He tells us that He created man in His image?

No, I've never asked Him. What's your opinion on the subject?

You haven't asked the One Who states HE made man in HIs image, the Author of all that was created? The One Who breathed His breath of life into man, who was created in His image?

Why not?

 

[troodon]

You haven't asked the One Who states HE made man in HIs image, the Author of all that was created? The One Who breathed His breath of life into man, who was created in His image?

Why not?

Because I don't believe God has a physical image, so I'm not going to go asking Him if His physical image looks like me.

Why have you dodged my question?

 

[Skaloop]

Therefore it is "possible" that the ark existed, until it is dis-proven?

Is it possible the ark existed? Yes. Though the possibility that it was built as described in the Bible is extremely low.

Even if it did exist, though, the possibility of a world-wide flood is even lower, because there is substantial evidence against it.

But again, still technically possible. In the same way that flipping a coin and getting heads a billion times in a row is possible. Possible, but not in any way likely.

 

[Nostromo]

I was implying that the bones that fallible man finds burried in the earth are catorgorized and labeled because of their presupposed imagination of what fallible man wants them to be...

They are in fact , either ape, monkey, lemur or human.

At least you recognise you have a problem.

 

[firechild_82]

So which one exactly is "in God's image"?

 

[brinny]

Because I don't believe God has a physical image, so I'm not going to go asking Him if His physical image looks like me.

Why have you dodged my question?

Do you not speak with Him? Surely you know that He grants wisdom to those who ask for it, as it is written, brother in Christ and son of the most High God?

 

[BananaSlug]

Rather that searching looking for a post to reply to, I just went with the OP.

According to science, and other physical evidence (fossils, breeding grounds,ect.) Science has come to the conclusion these are our closest relatives (in evolution, Homo sapien-modern man, and Homo hablis- closest to our modern form)

More or less that is correct. Fossils cannot tell us specific relationships but they do provide a general framework. It is not just fossils that help show evolutionary relationships. Today we have the ability to look at the DNA of an organism and build evolutionary relationships that are independently verified through molecular biology and genetic research.

But since there is this evidence, I am so confused
Ive grown up in the church, and have experienced our perfect God in so many ways.

Then do not let the discoveries of science get in the way of your belief in God.

How can I break down this evidence as truth, and still serve a God who created the whole world in 7 days?

It seems your confusion is more related to how you should interpret the Bible. Is the Bible any less true to you if God didn't create the world in 7 days?

I just see conflict and want to find resolution within my own faith in order to serve God, this is a huge stumbling block for me recently since studying this in a secular university.

You would probably be amazed at how many of your professors are Christian. Only 3 of mine were atheist, these rest were Christian, though of different denominations. Maybe try talking to one of your professors and see if they have any advice to give.

If my questions arent clear please inform me and I will try to rewrite them. Thanks again!

That's okay. No one should become an atheist because of evolution. Evolution is compatible with Christianity, it is more of a matter on how to interpret Genesis. In any case, my atheism is based in logic and critical thinking skills, not on evolution.

 

[Nostromo]

Do you not speak with Him? Surely you know that He grants wisdom to those who ask for it, as it is written, brother in Christ and son of the most High God?

Could you ask him for me and pass on the message?

 

[Doveaman]

Does not follow. I could speak of Doveaman and Superman in the same context, but that doesn't make Superman real just because you are.

Can you explain Doverman and Superman in the same biblical context as recorded in scripture without trying to be funny?

 

[Skaloop]

Can you explain Doverman and Superman in the same biblical context as recorded in scripture without trying to be funny?

Yes.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm not terribly interested in the Big Bang, otherwise I would have gone out of my way to educate myself on the subject. I don't argue the subject on this forum because I know I don't know much about it.

I’m sure there are many others who don’t know much about it but accept it on the basis of faith in the words of scientists.

That isn't an explanation, that's hand waving. An explanation would include the reason why the astronomers think these things shouldn't exist.

It doesn’t matter since you don’t know the subject.

Again, no. A lack of evidence does not falsify anything, I've been quite clear on this.

Then Adam was literal, the flood happened, and Jesus walked on water.

Take my word for it, Doveaman, you are very far from being educated about science.

Science involves logic, reason, imagination, and common sense. I have them all.

Science looks for things to falsify theories.

How is the flood falsified?

And how would that be any different from Jesus walking on water being falsified?

"The Peter Cushing Hypothesis (great band name, btw) is falsified because the evidence suggests he didn't babysit me."

The "Jesus walking on water" hypothesis is falsified because the evidence suggests water cannot be walk on by a man, he would sink.

The Jesus hypothesis includes the fact that he was divine.

Can you empirically verify “divine”?

A normal human being cannot walk on water, but a divine one may be able to, so the fact that normal human beings can't walk on water does not falsify this hypothesis.

Can you empirically verify that Jesus was not a normal human being?

This is theology. If you'd like to discuss it further please make a thread here and I'd love to answer it for you.
This forum is for discussions relating to science.

Weather Adam was literal or allegorical is a theological issue, not a scientific one, but, yet, you are using science (evolution) to deny he was literal. I am tempted to think there is a double standard going on here.

He lived 600 years later.

Time is irrelevant. The evidence you gave can be applied to Muhammad or John the Baptist.

Of course not. You asked what evidence I have that Jesus rose from the dead, not why am I a Christian.

What evidence do you have that led you to become a Christian?

 

[Crankitup]

...
A normal human being cannot walk on water, but a divine one may be able to, so the fact that ...

Peter was a normal human being and he walked on water too albeit not for very long because of his imperfect faith.

 

[Nostromo]

It doesn’t matter since you don’t know the subject.

And yet, you're still here.

 

[Doveaman]

Peter was a normal human being and he walked on water too albeit not for very long because of his imperfect faith.

I actually forgot about Peter.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I actually forgot about Peter.

Chris Angel was much better than Peter when it comes to walking of water.

 

[Orogeny]

the flood happened

Actually, not only is there no evidence that the flood did happen, essentially all of sedimentology provides evidence that the flood did NOT happen.