Evolution

[1whirlwind]

I shall reject the word of creationists then - seeing as they, in their brilliance, cannot agree on what a human fossil and an ape fossil look like.

Okay The only Word I ask you to accept is that of God.

The only recent error regarding Lucy is your thinking it was an error.

So Lucy, the male chimp, is a human ancestor? Okay then...God lies?

Tells me you need to read up on the scientific literature a bit more.

No. I leave that reading to you. I would say that perhaps you need to read up a bit more in another Book.

They are.

No...they are not.


.

 

[Cabal]

Okay The only Word I ask you to accept is that of God.

I do. I just don't accept your human opinion on what it means.

So Lucy, the male chimp, is a human ancestor? Okay then...God lies?

No, merely your opinion about God's word is incorrect.

No. I leave that reading to you. I would say that perhaps you need to read up a bit more in another Book.

Why? You're apparently ok with making claims based on total ignorance when it comes to evolution, so why are you suddenly not ok when you perceive such in others?

No...they are not.

Whatever you need to keep telling yourself. It's not like you've presented any reasonable basis for rejecting all the human remains that are that old.

 

[shernren]

I didn't imply that He was created.

Your previous post on this matter said:

You must decide if the Lights He placed to govern day and night are the Sun, moon and stars or....Jesus, Satan and angelic beings.

Yet the lights that govern day and night were made by God:

And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars. (Gen 1:16, ESV)
​

But Jesus is uncreated. Therefore Jesus is not any of the lights of Genesis 1:16, no matter how many (metaphorical) references you may find comparing God to the sun.

 

[1whirlwind]

I do. I just don't accept your human opinion on what it means.

There is no need to accept human opinion. What is written...is written:


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. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

No, merely your opinion about God's word is incorrect.

Only one is true for only one can be true. Evolution, which is the opinion of man, or God's Word, which is written and is no man's opinion...make your choice.

Why? You're apparently ok with making claims based on total ignorance when it comes to evolution, so why are you suddenly not ok when you perceive such in others?

He created man in His image, in His likeness (He didn't evolve them from animals)

He created them male and female (He created them to procreate from the beginning)

He gave them dominion over the animals (He didn't evolve them from the animals)

He created them on the sixth day (I see that as year 6000 of this age...even if that isn't correct...He didn't create them billions of years ago)
​

That is what I base my understanding on. If you wish to consider it "total ignorance," then....I'm okay with that.

Whatever you need to keep telling yourself. It's not like you've presented any reasonable basis for rejecting all the human remains that are that old.

What human remains? The "old ones" are those such as Lucy. He wasn't human.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Your previous post on this matter said:



Yet the lights that govern day and night were made by God:

And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars. (Gen 1:16, ESV)
​

But Jesus is uncreated. Therefore Jesus is not any of the lights of Genesis 1:16, no matter how many (metaphorical) references you may find comparing God to the sun.

The words "created" and "made" carry different meanings.

If you see the quotes provided previously as merely metaphoric then...you are missing a great deal.


.

 

[Cabal]

There is no need to accept human opinion. What is written...is written:

And you have been presenting your opinion on how it should be interpreted. Not all creationists are day-age - that is your opinion.

Only one is true for only one can be true. Evolution, which is the opinion of man, or God's Word, which is written and is no man's opinion...make your choice.

I will go for the man-made option that makes sense - any reading of the Bible is man-made, after all.

That is what I base my understanding on. If you wish to consider it "total ignorance," then....I'm okay with that.

You have a total ignorance of evolution and yet think you are still justified in dismissing it. Just saying - if people wanted to reject the Bible based on ignorance of what the Bible said, you wouldn't consider that a good approach; so have a modicum of respect and treat the opposing view the same way.

What human remains? The "old ones" are those such as Lucy. He wasn't human.

Yes, well spotted. It is a much older ancestral species.

 

[gluadys]

There is no need to accept human opinion. What is written...is written:

He created man in His image, in His likeness (He didn't evolve them from animals)

He created them male and female (He created them to procreate from the beginning)

He gave them dominion over the animals (He didn't evolve them from the animals)

He created them on the sixth day (I see that as year 6000 of this age...even if that isn't correct...He didn't create them billions of years ago)
​

That is what I base my understanding on. If you wish to consider it "total ignorance," then....I'm okay with that.

Yet when you post what is written, you add an interpretation.

All of these can be interpreted differently:

He created man (via evolution) in His image, in His likeness.

He created them male and female to procreate (like the animals who were their ancestors).

He gave them dominion over the animals. (Just as he chose Israel from among the nations to be his holy people, he chose humans from among the animals to have dominion over his earthly creation.)

He created them on the sixth day (which is an indefinite time period like the days preceeding and following it--there has been no closure to the seventh day.)


Now I am not claiming these interpretations are taught in scripture; but they are just as valid as yours which are also not taught in scripture.

 

[1whirlwind]

And you have been presenting your opinion on how it should be interpreted. Not all creationists are day-age - that is your opinion.

When it is written...it isn't "my opinion."

11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

​

I will go for the man-made option that makes sense - any reading of the Bible is man-made, after all.

Any reading is man made? Odd wording. Are you afraid to say the written word is "man-made." I certainly understand that, after all to believe man over God is a serious thing. I would skate around the issue too if I chose to believe the exact opposite of His account.

You have a total ignorance of evolution and yet think you are still justified in dismissing it. Just saying - if people wanted to reject the Bible based on ignorance of what the Bible said, you wouldn't consider that a good approach; so have a modicum of respect and treat the opposing view the same way.

I have great respect for science. I also know scientist are men...not God.

Yes, I dismiss evolution of man from ape and I see it as a total rejection of God's Word on this topic.

Yes, well spotted. It is a much older ancestral species.

Cabal, you're still skating here. If evolution is true then there should be skeletal remains all over the place of man going through various stages on his march up the evolutionary ladder. Dinosaur fossils are dug up all the time...why not man? Where are they?


.

 

[Cabal]

When it is written...it isn't "my opinion."

11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.​

It is entirely your opinion to apply this to Genesis 1 - Peter sure wasn't talking about it.

Any reading is man made? Odd wording. Are you afraid to say the written word is "man-made."

No, that too - but what is relevant here is the reading. Anyone who reads the Bible is automatically creating their own interpretation of what they are reading. The most aware will realise and be pragmatic about this, rather than constantly deny it.

I certainly understand that, after all to believe man over God is a serious thing.

You seem to be doing that with creationism.

I would skate around the issue too if I chose to believe the exact opposite of His account.

Nothing to skate around - your stance on the Bible is entirely opinion-based, not much more supported than geocentrism was nor based on an accurate understanding of the science it purports to supplant.

I have great respect for science.

That's debatable, given how easily you cast it aside.

I also know scientist are men...not God.

I know creationists are men, not God.

Yes, I dismiss evolution of man from ape and I see it as a total rejection of God's Word on this topic.

Cabal, you're still skating here. If evolution is true then there should be skeletal remains all over the place of man going through various stages on his march up the evolutionary ladder. Dinosaur fossils are dug up all the time...why not man? Where are they?

This nothing again? I already told you before - there are lots of transitional fossils. I'm not sure where you got the impression there aren't.

 

[Papias]

OK, I still owe WW a detailed response to our points, and I'll get to that, but in the meantime.....


WW wrote:

This present earth age is, according to Scripture, about 14,000 years old.

WW, are you aware that practically everyone, on both sides of the creationist/evolution debate, thinks you are wrong? Science has established the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, and on the creationists side, so few creationists accept your view that it doesn't even show up on polls. 95+ % of everyone in the US agrees that WW is wrong, including nearly all Christians.

There are NO skeletal remains of man past, I believe, 14,000 years. Doesn't that tell you something? They find objects dated well past that time but not man's bones.

Where are you getting your information, creationist sources? Human remains from thousands of years ago have been found all over. Here are just some of them:

Wadi Kubbaniya
8 - 20k
Homo sapiens
1982
Egypt
Kow Swamp 1
9k - 13k
Homo sapiens
1968
Australia
Afalou 13
8k - 12k
Homo sapiens
1920's
Algeria
Wadi Halfa 25
6k - 12k
Homo sapiens
1963
Sudan
Wadjak 1
10 - 12k
Homo sapiens
1888
Indonesia
Tepexpan man
11 - 5k
Homo sapiens
1947
Mexico
Cerro Sota 2
11k
Homo sapiens
1936
Chile
SDM 16704
4.9k - 11.8k
Homo sapiens
1929
United States
Lo 4b
6k - 9k
Homo sapiens
1965–1975
Ötzi the Iceman
5.3k
Homo sapiens
1991
Ötztal Alps (between Austria and Italy)
Kerma 27
3.5k
Homo sapiens
1913–1916
Sudan
Five Knolls 18
1.5k - 3.5k
Homo sapiens
1925–1929
England
Humboldt Sink
<1500 years
Homo sapiens
United States

Shouldn't they (fossils of humans) be all over the place if evolution is true?

Somebody doesn't understand taphonomy. Most bodies (including the bones) decay to nothing within a few decades or centuries, whether buried or not. It is only under specific circumstances that we get preserved bones.

I hope you can see the simple math that says we should find a lot more dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs were around for over 100 million years, giving many opportunities for fossilization conditions. Humans have been around for ~ 1.5 million years. So of course we should find more dinosaur bones than human bones - and we do.

Lucy? That error was recent.

What error, specifically, do you mean with regard to Lucy?

What human remains? The "old ones" are those such as Lucy. He wasn't human.

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with Lucy's sex (you keep repeating that Lucy was male), but Lucy is probably a female, based on the pelvis.

Also, I'm still waiting to see which of the transitional Ape-human fossils that were posted in that lettered picture you think are human, and which are ape. It should be easy, right?

Papias

 

[1whirlwind]

Yet when you post what is written, you add an interpretation.

All of these can be interpreted differently:

He created man (via evolution) in His image, in His likeness.

Gluadys, there is no hint of an evolutionary process in Scripture...none. So, your interpretation carries no weight.

He created them male and female to procreate (like the animals who were their ancestors).

The animals had offspring "after their kind." Humans weren't their kind.

He gave them dominion over the animals. (Just as he chose Israel from among the nations to be his holy people, he chose humans from among the animals to have dominion over his earthly creation.)

So...people came from animals but the animals remained animals and then the people from the animals...had dominion over the animals?

He created them on the sixth day (which is an indefinite time period like the days preceeding and following it--there has been no closure to the seventh day.)

It is a definite time period...as written and why do you see "no closure to the seventh day?"



Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.


Things were "finished." They didn't continue an an imaginary evolutionary process...and that includes "all the host of them." People! Finished, ended. He blessed that day and it is sanctified. Please notice that "He had rested" is past tense. That seventh day drew to a close.

Now I am not claiming these interpretations are taught in scripture; but they are just as valid as yours which are also not taught in scripture.

We must disagree.



.

 

[philadiddle]

The animals had offspring "after their kind." Humans weren't their kind.

Humans are a kind of mammal so we evolved with other mammals after our kind. Mammals are a kind of vertabrate so mammals and all other vertabrates evolved after their kind.

If you disagree with this then you will need to provide us with the specific definition of "kind" that you are using to make your argument.

 

[1whirlwind]

Humans are a kind of mammal so we evolved with other mammals after our kind. Mammals are a kind of vertabrate so mammals and all other vertabrates evolved after their kind.

If you disagree with this then you will need to provide us with the specific definition of "kind" that you are using to make your argument.

Kind...each species produces their own species. Man does not evolve from ape, as depicted in your Avatar.



.

 

[philadiddle]

Kind...each species produces their own species. Man does not evolve from ape, as depicted in your Avatar.

So each of the different species of frog was created separately? What about the 450,000 species of beetles, were they all created separately? If not, what is your definition of species?

 

[1whirlwind]

OK, I still owe WW a detailed response to our points, and I'll get to that, but in the meantime.....


WW wrote:



WW, are you aware that practically everyone, on both sides of the creationist/evolution debate, thinks you are wrong? Science has established the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, and on the creationists side, so few creationists accept your view that it doesn't even show up on polls. 95+ % of everyone in the US agrees that WW is wrong, including nearly all Christians.

I didn't say the earth was 14,000 years old...I said this earth age is.

Creationist at least err on the side of what is written. However, in their zeal to believe they think all men came from Adam and that Adam was the first man on earth, and that once wiped out...all men, all races, came from Noah. Why...because that is what they have been taught.

Where are you getting your information, creationist sources? Human remains from thousands of years ago have been found all over. Here are just some of them:

Wadi Kubbaniya
8 - 20k
Homo sapiens
1982
Egypt
Kow Swamp 1
9k - 13k
Homo sapiens
1968
Australia
Afalou 13
8k - 12k
Homo sapiens
1920's
Algeria
Wadi Halfa 25
6k - 12k
Homo sapiens
1963
Sudan
Wadjak 1
10 - 12k
Homo sapiens
1888
Indonesia
Tepexpan man
11 - 5k
Homo sapiens
1947
Mexico
Cerro Sota 2
11k
Homo sapiens
1936
Chile
SDM 16704
4.9k - 11.8k
Homo sapiens
1929
United States
Lo 4b
6k - 9k
Homo sapiens
1965–1975
Ötzi the Iceman
5.3k
Homo sapiens
1991
Ötztal Alps (between Austria and Italy)
Kerma 27
3.5k
Homo sapiens
1913–1916
Sudan
Five Knolls 18
1.5k - 3.5k
Homo sapiens
1925–1929
England
Humboldt Sink
<1500 years
Homo sapiens
United States

I randomly went to three of the sites. A waste of time. One was an ape and in the rest I didn't even see a reference to anything we're discussing. Admittedly I scanned them but still...ape remains aren't human remains.

Somebody doesn't understand taphonomy. Most bodies (including the bones) decay to nothing within a few decades or centuries, whether buried or not. It is only under specific circumstances that we get preserved bones.

I hope you can see the simple math that says we should find a lot more dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs were around for over 100 million years, giving many opportunities for fossilization conditions. Humans have been around for ~ 1.5 million years. So of course we should find more dinosaur bones than human bones - and we do.

Oh I would think that some bodies would be found preserved...just as the dinosaurs...if there were bodies to be preserved.

What error, specifically, do you mean with regard to Lucy?

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with Lucy's sex (you keep repeating that Lucy was male), but Lucy is probably a female, based on the pelvis.

Lucy, was purported to be THE link. He wasn't. He was a chimp. I am obsessed with it in order to point out to Cabal that it is science that incorrectly tagged him as a she. Science also incorrectly tagged him as a human ancestor.

Also, I'm still waiting to see which of the transitional Ape-human fossils that were posted in that lettered picture you think are human, and which are ape. It should be easy, right?

Papias

And...why are you obsessed with this? I answered previously and I stand by that answer.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

So each of the different species of frog was created separately? What about the 450,000 species of beetles, were they all created separately? If not, what is your definition of species?

Have I not said, from the beginning of this thread....I am not talking about adaptation within a species. I am speaking of one species becoming another species. Specificially an ape becoming a man.


.

 

[Cabal]

Lucy, was purported to be THE link. He wasn't. He was a chimp. I am obsessed with it in order to point out to Cabal that it is science that incorrectly tagged him as a she. Science also incorrectly tagged him as a human ancestor.

You never gave any justification as to why Lucy was incorrectly identified - and you've shown yourself to be utterly clueless when it comes to what evolution actually claims and is evidenced by that there is no reason to accept your conclusion.

Even if Lucy were wrong, that is one fossil out of several thousand. Showing one up to be incorrect does not affect the remainder.

 

[Cabal]

Have I not said, from the beginning of this thread....I am not talking about adaptation within a species. I am speaking of one species becoming another species. Specificially an ape becoming a man.

Wrong again - speciation has been observed countless times.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7506353-14/#post55983508

 

[1whirlwind]

You never gave any justification as to why Lucy was incorrectly identified - and you've shown yourself to be utterly clueless when it comes to what evolution actually claims and is evidenced by that there is no reason to accept your conclusion.

Even if Lucy were wrong, that is one fossil out of several thousand. Showing one up to be incorrect does not affect the remainder.

Lucy is not the missing link. He is instead proven to be a KNUCKLE DRAGGING CHIMP.

Please, please, please....show me the myriad thousands of fossils of an ape becoming a man. Where are the bones? Or, did all of those particular ones simply disentegrate but prehistoric ape bones are still here for us to find? Odd how that happens.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Wrong again - speciation has been observed countless times.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7506353-14/#post55983508

The fruitfly remained a fruitfly...changes yes, different species...no.

Ape remains age...with changes within it's species...yes...changes to man...no.


.