Evolution vs God ?

[BarryDesborough]

Genesis 1.

Those thingamajigs God created were told to multiply after their own kind.

The only things reproducing after their kind in Gen 1 are herb, and fruit trees.

Read it.

It is the waters and the earth that brought forth creatures "after their kind" (in modern English, "according to their type or species", in French, selon leurs espèces). There is no mention of multiplying after there own kind, and certainly no rule against one kind of creature evolving from another.

Genesis says that God made the non-living world (the waters and the earth) in such a way that they brought forth all the different sorts of creatures. It does not say how this happened. IOW, God made the living world indirectly.

 

[twinc]

The only things reproducing after their kind in Gen 1 are herb, and fruit trees.

Read it.

It is the waters and the earth that brought forth creatures "after their kind" (in modern English, "according to their type or species", in French, selon leurs espèces). There is no mention of multiplying after there own kind, and certainly no rule against one kind of creature evolving from another.

Genesis says that God made the non-living world (the waters and the earth) in such a way that they brought forth all the different sorts of creatures. It does not say how this happened. IOW, God made the living world indirectly.

rubbish - the creatures were brought forth from the waters and earth by God who created them[Gen.1:25] - they were not created by the waters and the earth as you mistakenly accept and imply and expect us to accept nonsense - there certainly is a rule against one kind of creature evolving from another[1 Cor.15:39] - as Christians it behoves us to guard against the penchant of accepting the way out,weird and wacky in preference to the original and the true - btw brought forth from is not at all the same as brought forth by or by and by in the future even - twinc

 

[BarryDesborough]

rubbish - the creatures were brought forth from the waters and earth by God who created them[Gen.1:25] - they were not created by the waters and the earth as you mistakenly accept and imply and expect us to accept nonsense - there certainly is a rule against one kind of creature evolving from another[1 Cor.15:39] - twinc

Stop making stuff up about scripture.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Note, no reproducing after kind. Brought forth after their kind. By what? By the waters and the earth. Abiogenesis.

And Corinthians does not say that one kind of flesh cannot change into another. My ERV link proves that it can.

Get back to my ERV link. It proves that creationism is nonsense. Read it, and it will save you from wasting the rest of your life on this fool's errand. Read it. ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model If anything is unclear to you, just ask.

 

[twinc]

Stop making stuff up about scripture.


Note, no reproducing after kind. Brought forth after their kind. By what? By the waters and the earth. Abiogenesis.

And Corinthians does not say that one kind of flesh cannot change into another. My ERV link proves that it can.

Get back to my ERV link. It proves that creationism is nonsense. Read it, and it will save you from wasting the rest of your life on this fool's errand. Read it. ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model If anything is unclear to you, just ask.

you must stop quoting scripture and not understanding it and that 'origins evolution' cannot and did not happen and true Christians must not and are forbidden to accept or teach that it can and did or could happen and that abiogenesis is nonsense,non science and rubbish - twinc

 

[BarryDesborough]

you must stop quoting scripture and not understanding it and that 'origins evolution' cannot and did not happen and true Christians must not and are forbidden to accept or teach that it can and did or could happen and that abiogenesis is nonsense,non science and rubbish - twinc

I think it is against your religion to misrepresent scripture. That is what you and your unbiblical cult do. There is no "reproduce after kind", and Genesis says, clear as day, that the waters and the earth brought forth life.

You have still not given me any indication that you have looked here, ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Stop wasting everyone's time and study it.

 

[twinc]

I think it is against your religion to misrepresent scripture. That is what you and your unbiblical cult do. There is no "reproduce after kind", and Genesis says, clear as day, that the waters and the earth brought forth life.

You have still not given me any indication that you have looked here, ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Stop wasting everyone's time and study it.

brought forth from does not mean brought forth by or even by and by in the future - I have no time or inclination to accept ERVs or Abiogenesis,Big Bangs etc and finish up all mixed up and confused - twinc

 

[BarryDesborough]

brought forth from does not mean brought forth by or even by and by in the future - I have no time or inclination to accept ERVs or Abiogenesis,Big Bangs etc and finish up all mixed up and confused - twinc

"Brought forth from does not mean brought forth by".

Really?

Now you are reduced to denying the plain meaning of plain words. Moses must be spinning in his grave!

Let the waters bring forth. The waters brought forth. Let the earth bring forth. This is not God bringing forth from the waters and the earth. It is the waters and the earth bringing forth. Either you are going to believe scripture or not. Which is it?

The title of this thread is "Evolution v God". It was you who started it. If you are not prepared to learn about either scripture or evolution, then you have destroyed your own credibility here. Why should anyone take anything you say about anything seriously?

BTW, I'm not mixed up and confused. There is no need for you to be either. I said I would help you with understanding the article. http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

[twinc]

"Brought forth from does not mean brought forth by".

Really?

Now you are reduced to denying the plain meaning of plain words. Moses must be spinning in his grave!

Let the waters bring forth. The waters brought forth. Let the earth bring forth. This is not God bringing forth from the waters and the earth. It is the waters and the earth bringing forth. Either you are going to believe scripture or not. Which is it?

The title of this thread is "Evolution v God". It was you who started it. If you are not prepared to learn about either scripture or evolution, then you have destroyed your own credibility here. Why should anyone take anything you say about anything seriously?

BTW, I'm not mixed up and confused. There is no need for you to be either. I said I would help you with understanding the article. ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

I said I did not want to be mixed up and confused - I HAVE ALREADY STATED - abiogenesis is nonsense and it is God that is doing the bringing forth as clearly stated at Gen. 1:25 - it was by God saying so that the earth and waters brought forth[Gen.1:20 & 24] and not of and by themselves - so you do err in not knowing Scriptures or pseudo science - so you have destroyed your own credibility here so why should anyone take any thing you say about anything seriously ? - twinc

 

[driewerf]

No.

Humans are mankind.

Humans are actually two different kinds:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Checkmate, literalists.

 

[Heissonear]

The only things reproducing after their kind in Gen 1 are herb, and fruit trees.

Read it.

It is the waters and the earth that brought forth creatures "after their kind" (in modern English, "according to their type or species", in French, selon leurs espèces). There is no mention of multiplying after there own kind, and certainly no rule against one kind of creature evolving from another.

Genesis says that God made the non-living world (the waters and the earth) in such a way that they brought forth all the different sorts of creatures. It does not say how this happened. IOW, God made the living world indirectly.

We will see how that stands up when you meet Him.

 

[Heissonear]

Humans are actually two different kinds:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Checkmate, literalists.

Interpreting and applying the Bible is not a Naturalist strength. It is their playtime.

 

[BarryDesborough]

We will see how that stands up when you meet Him.

Read the sig.

Have you got any issues with Genesis or with the evidence from ERVs? If so, what are they?

 

[bhsmte]

Interpreting and applying the Bible is not a Naturalist strength. It is their playtime.

Is it a strength of christians?

Since christians themselves disagree on so much within the bible, it seems to be their playtime as well.

 

[Heissonear]

Read the sig.

Have you got any issues with Genesis or with the evidence from ERVs? If so, what are they?

It was your interpretation of Genesis the reply was about. Will it stand when you finally meet Him?

 

[Heissonear]

Is it a strength of christians?

Since christians themselves disagree on so much within the bible, it seems to be their playtime as well.

You like to inch forward in progress towards understanding things that exist? A more measurable way is going to the Source.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It was your interpretation of Genesis the reply was about. Will it stand when you finally meet Him?

Still all boils down to fear for you lot I see.

 

[bhsmte]

You like to inch forward in progress towards understanding things that exist? A more measurable way is going to the Source.

Sure, the source of the bible is man and many of the authors are unknown.

Even conservative christian scholars agree with this.

The bible is a book of theology, not a book of historical credibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are actually two different kinds:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Checkmate, literalists.

Ya ... I'm a little ahead of you on that:

Except the Bible portrays humans as having two kinds, not one.

 

[Heissonear]

Still all boils down to fear for you lot I see.

You really don't have an answer for seeing Him, since so far He does not exist to you.

The other is where you have placed your (supposedly non-existent) faith: a) condtions required for the primordial soup; b) odds for the biochemical process of RNA & DNA production.

 

[Heissonear]

Sure, the source of the bible is man and many of the authors are unknown.

Even conservative christian scholars agree with this.

The bible is a book of theology, not a book of historical credibility.

Well after inching forward you "have arrived".

The bent aspects will be understood, maybe too late. You still think things are by chance based Naturalism.