Evolution discussion, I need help with apeman ideas

[dementiasayn]

I am on a forum and I am getting my tail kicked by the amount of info out tere dealing with evolution and mankind. Basically here is so much info on "Lucy" the other remains of what could be human or ape that I can not find a decent article to refute evolutionary claims. This is eith dueto a complete lack of refuteing evidence as the evolutionist will claim or that the evidence has been made to appear a certain way. Either way I need to show the truth here that God created man as we are today and there were never any cavemen or homo-nithic ect,..
Just some evidence showing massive flaws in the way the scientist use data or the implimentation of supposed facts would help allot. I am fighting a loseing battle here and I hope I am not without recourse. I thank anyone with any info that can assist here.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On


Thread moved from the Theology staff discussions forum to origins.
​

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am on a forum and I am getting my tail kicked by the amount of info out tere dealing with evolution and mankind. Basically here is so much info on "Lucy" the other remains of what could be human or ape that I can not find a decent article to refute evolutionary claims. This is eith dueto a complete lack of refuteing evidence as the evolutionist will claim or that the evidence has been made to appear a certain way. Either way I need to show the truth here that God created man as we are today and there were never any cavemen or homo-nithic ect,..
Just some evidence showing massive flaws in the way the scientist use data or the implimentation of supposed facts would help allot. I am fighting a loseing battle here and I hope I am not without recourse. I thank anyone with any info that can assist here.

But what if there were cavemen?

 

[Mallon]

Yeah. If there's so much evidence for man having a common ancestor with other apes, how do you know YOU'RE not the one in the wrong, here?

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Yeah. If there's so much evidence for man having a common ancestor with other apes, how do you know YOU'RE not the one in the wrong, here?

I know I'm not wrong because of the following:

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

To say we have a common ancestor with apes, to me is saying God is an ape. And God is NOT an ape!

God Bless
Melissa

 

[Mallon]

So you think God is a human?

 

[Assyrian]

So you think God is a human?

Or dust.
Gen 2:6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
God can't form man in his image out from a common ancestor with apes or God would be an ape. So if God makes man in his image from dust it must mean God is dust or mud.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

So you think God is a human?

No I don't believe He is human (as you and I). God made us in His own likeness. To me that means He gave us the ability to rationalize, grasp the concept of sin, know right from wrong, and the ability to sit down and read the Bible and either believe it is the Word of God or totally discredit it.

I have yet to come across another species which has the capabilities of doing such.

I also believe He came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Now to say that Jesus was an ape that went around preaching the word of God, really?

 

[Mallon]

No I don't believe He is human (as you and I). God made us in His own likeness. To me that means He gave us the ability to rationalize, grasp the concept of sin, know right from wrong, and the ability to sit down and read the Bible and either believe it is the Word of God or totally discredit it.

Right. All of which has to do with our spiritual disposition and not our biological make-up. So what does it matter if we acknowledge that, biologically, we are apes? That isn't to say that we don't also bear the image of God. Even the Bible suggests we had a common origin with other animals in the ground from which we were made, as Assyrian points out.

I also believe He came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Now to say that Jesus was an ape that went around preaching the word of God, really?

Is it really any different from acknowledging that Jesus was a mammal? Or a vertebrate?

 

[Siyha]

I know I'm not wrong because of the following:

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

To say we have a common ancestor with apes, to me is saying God is an ape. And God is NOT an ape!

God Bless
Melissa

I think you are misinterpreating Genesis 1. Contrary to polular belief, a literal concept of the creation accounts (yes there is 2 of them, and they are in different orders) is not the traditional view, but only been around for a few hundred years.

It also seems a contradiction to be offended that God could have made man from a lesser species, because that is clearly not God's image, and be completely fine with man being made from dust, which is a symbol for death and fragility in the Hebrew culture - and God is definately not fragile.

Image of God is also a wider discussed topic, with few conclusive ideas on what it means. Is it our physical appearance? Our ability to have emotion? Our rational thinking? All of those things? Something entirely different? - none of these would be impacted at all were God to form man using an to be formed by an evolutionary process.

 

[Siyha]

I also believe He came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Now to say that Jesus was an ape that went around preaching the word of God, really?

Who said that?

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Who said that?

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

1 John 4:2,3
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Jesus was fully God and fully human.

 

[Assyrian]

I also believe He came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Now to say that Jesus was an ape that went around preaching the word of God, really?

I think you are missing out the significance of the incarnation. That the Son of God emptied and humbled himself to become man. You seem to think becoming human is great, we are so wonderful, what deity wouldn't want to become one of us? But an ape? Yeuch! they smell, scratch themselves and throw poo. But it is us humans who are the ones who are morally filthy. Seriously every time I hear this arguement I think of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector [FONT=&quot]. [/FONT] The Creationist, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that we are not like other creatures, we are so wonderful you were really honoured to become one of us. But the gorilla, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a simian!'

 

[Siyha]

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

1 John 4:2,3
2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Again, who said Jesus was an ape?

 

[MattLangley]

No evidence for evolution? Just google "evidence for evolution" and you will find quite a few sites explaining the abundant evidence for evolution. The second link being hosted on the Berkeley edu site. You really need to look at the info outside of your current bias.

 

[rockytriton]

You are trying the wrong argument. There is tons of evidence for evolution because it happened (and is always happening). I'm sure that it's a part of God's plan. Don't trust some 3,000+ year old ancient tribes to tell you science and history. Genesis is ancient hebrew mythology, treat it as such.

The REAL question you need to be asking is about the first living organisms. I have studied molecular cell biology and that has only increased my faith in God. The living cell is an extremely complex thing. In Darwin's day, what man though of living cells was nothing compared to what we know about them now. If man thought a living cell was like a Model T Ford back then, today we know that they are more like the Starship Enterprise.

I can understand man back then thinking it possible for there to be some "soup" of molecules and lightning which created the first living cells, but knowing what we know today, that's just impossible. There is absolutely no evidence for life coming from just plain molecules evolving and the very few hypothethis that I have heard are completely outlandish and have aboslutely no evidence. In truth NOBODY knows how life first formed and nobody tries to say that they know.

I don't like the old "God of the gaps" arguments, but there is just no way this can be done without some supernatural help. I also believe that evolution has been helped along by God, but that's just a personal belief with no evidence.

 

[MattLangley]

but there is just no way this can be done without some supernatural help

That concept is what was thought about many of the things we now know a natural solution for.

 

[rockytriton]

That concept is what was thought about many of the things we now know a natural solution for.

this is true, but science also says that the cell is the most basic living thing, nothing inside the cell is living, how can non-living things evolve? How can instructions for creating complex proteins be encoded in simple strands of atoms. How could something have evolved to read this encoded info and then something else have evolved to interpret the code and produce the proteins?

It just does not make sense, these are not living creatures, they are just other strands of atoms. Just *poof* here is a language, something to encode it in, something to read it and something to manufacture based on its contents. Without these essential things the cell cannot reproduce, reproduction is essential to evolution. These are just the most basic parts of the cell, not including the nuclear power plant which generates the power for the cell to do things like taking in atoms which it needs and disposing of other atoms.

 

[suzmot]

this is true, but science also says that the cell is the most basic living thing, nothing inside the cell is living, how can non-living things evolve?

Your questions would get much better answers were you brave enough to venture into the Creation / Evolution subforum #70.

I don't have enough posts to show you a link, but if you search google for "self replicating RNA" you should find the article I'm referring to.

Quote from it: "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]They have synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves indefinitely without the help of any proteins or other cellular components."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]