Evolution

[pgp_protector]

I need to add this to my sig line I think.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

 

[Cabal]

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

My goodness! Another assertion made with no backup whatsoever! I am now convinced, I shall immediately convert to creationism and burn all my science books!

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.

How about we not treat your assertion as fact and instead YOU back up YOUR claims? All you're doing is when presented with human or human ancestral fossils is going "nuh-uh! So where are the fossils?" This is so tragically inadequate a defence I don't even know where to start.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

In the post I was responding to you said "Kind...each species produces their own species." I am merely trying to clarify how you define species, since there are many different species of frogs, and each species only produces their own species, doesn't that mean that according to your definition they did NOT share a common ancestor?

And as a point of clarification, talking about the number of different species of frogs is not adaptation within species, because they are different species.

 

[Cabal]

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

Uh, actually yes, different species. Reproductively incompatible. The problem here is that you don't really know what a species is.

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

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

So do we agree that the vast majority of both Christians and non Christians in the US think you are wrong about the origin of our world?

Admittedly I scanned them but still...ape remains aren't human remains.

Maybe learn about things before talking? The experts looked at all of these and they are clearly human bones, not apes. Plus, this isn't a list of links, usually the items listed are just names.

I can see WW at the Doctor's office:
Dr: The tests are positive for diabetes, you'll need to adjust your diet.
WW: Let me see the tests - OK, admittedly I scanned them but still, I don't have diabetes.
Dr: These are standard tests agreed upon by medical researchers, how can you say you know better than they?
WW: It's just man's word, and it can't be trusted. Give me my candy bar!

The point is that the experts who looked at all these bones know human bones better than you do, and so to say they aren't human is silly. It also shows that it'd be pretty pointless to show you more, you just ignore evidence, even if the experts say just what we are trying to point out.


Obviously an ape? This is one of the ones I listed.

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

Of course there are. I just listed over a dozen of them!

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.

Science showed that Lucy is both likely female and a likely human ancestor. Neither of those were ever found to be wrong. Could you please provide some reason to think that Lucy was found to be 1. Male and 2. Not a human ancestor? Why do you think those were ever found to be wrong?

I answered previously and I stand by that answer. (about which skulls were Human and which were Ape).

OK, then could you kindly either repeat the answer or give the post number? I ask because it looks like you have been simply ignoring evidence without consideration.

Papias
​

 

[philadiddle]

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

I made a thread on this a while back you may wish to participate. It would be off topic to go into detail here so you can check out that thread and join in over there. I gave the specific evidence for why Lucy is a transitional form. After no one was able to challenge the points made in the OP I asked a few more specific questions in post #34. Take a look and respond to that thread, I'd like to hear the reasoning for your assertions.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/

 

[1whirlwind]

I need to add this to my sig line I think.

I wonder if St. Augustine would remain a saint in God's eyes if he taught you to discard God's word and instead accept that of man?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

I made a thread on this a while back you may wish to participate. It would be off topic to go into detail here so you can check out that thread and join in over there. I gave the specific evidence for why Lucy is a transitional form. After no one was able to challenge the points made in the OP I asked a few more specific questions in post #34. Take a look and respond to that thread, I'd like to hear the reasoning for your assertions.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7503000/

Thank you but...no Philadiddle. I won't join you there. I wouldn't be here except that one of the mods moved my thread. Why? I don't know. I look at the top of the page that tells us discussion of evolution shouldn't be here and have to ask why it was placed here. But, discussions such as this truly don't interest me. I was led to write the OP, I was moved here and I have responded to questions...who knows, maybe God wanted to open some eyes.

There is too much to learn, too much to teach without going over this again and again.




.

 

[1whirlwind]

My goodness! Another assertion made with no backup whatsoever! I am now convinced, I shall immediately convert to creationism and burn all my science books!

How about we not treat your assertion as fact and instead YOU back up YOUR claims? All you're doing is when presented with human or human ancestral fossils is going "nuh-uh! So where are the fossils?" This is so tragically inadequate a defence I don't even know where to start.

When I know something is a lie I accept it is such and don't keep files on who said Lucy was a lie and when it was said. I accept it and see no need to back that up at all. Why? Because we have His Word to guide us and that is the back-up I offer you.

Choose Him or choose Darwin.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

In the post I was responding to you said "Kind...each species produces their own species." I am merely trying to clarify how you define species, since there are many different species of frogs, and each species only produces their own species, doesn't that mean that according to your definition they did NOT share a common ancestor?

And as a point of clarification, talking about the number of different species of frogs is not adaptation within species, because they are different species.

Does a frog produce a dog? Any kind of a dog?


.

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

discard God's word and instead accept that of man?

So you don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches? Was it not men that taught you that the United States was founded about 200 years ago and that people have certain rights, like freedom of speech, ownership, and such?

Was it not men (humans) who told you that your mom is more than 10 years older than you, and that she wasn't poofed into existance just before your birth?

Was it not men that taught you to read, and to read a Bible? Was it not men that taught you to believe it, and specifically to interpret it literally?

Was it not men that taught you to ignore the Catholic Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, the Syriac Bible, and the many other Bibles out there beyond the one type you use? Why should you think that the one Bible that men told you to use is somehow better?

Was it not men that taught you that the Bibles were divine, and not written solely by humans? Was it not men that taught you that these Bibles are older than 30 years old?

Was it not men that taught you that Jesus even existed?

Was it not men that taught you that the Qu'ran is not from God, nor are the Upanishads, the book of Mormon, the Tao, the Analects, nor the Gita?

The path of "I don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches." leads to nihilism and ennui. It leaves you as a hermit with little more knowledge (nor future) than a beast of the wilderness, and certainly without your Christianity intact. You don't want to go there, and you certainly don't have to do so.

WW, you accept the teaching of man on many things, including your Bible and your Christianity. You only have yet to admit it.

Papias

 

[1whirlwind]

WW wrote:


So you don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches? Was it not men that taught you that the United States was founded about 200 years ago and that people have certain rights, like freedom of speech, ownership, and such?

I didn't say that Papias. We are speaking about the topic of evolution. I repeat, for the umpteenth time....when man teaches something in direct opposition to what our Father tells us...the EXACT opposite, then one of the teachings is a lie.

Was it not men (humans) who told you that your mom is more than 10 years older than you, and that she wasn't poofed into existance just before your birth?

What in the world has this to do with the written account of creation?

Was it not men that taught you to read, and to read a Bible? Was it not men that taught you to believe it, and specifically to interpret it literally?

I wasn't "churched." I'm still not and don't intend to ever be.

Was it not men that taught you to ignore the Catholic Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, the Syriac Bible, and the many other Bibles out there beyond the one type you use? Why should you think that the one Bible that men told you to use is somehow better?

Again, I wasn't churched. A man has never told me to ignore Bibles. I have been shown by the Holy Spirit the meaning of various passages. Many times, when discussing passages other posters quote the NIV or others. They have simplified the wording so much that the intent is lost. I would never use them.

Was it not men that taught you that the Bibles were divine, and not written solely by humans? Was it not men that taught you that these Bibles are older than 30 years old?

No. It wasn't. I have no idea what you mean by "30 years old." The bible wasn't written by humans and it was our Father that gives us that nugget of truth.

Was it not men that taught you that Jesus even existed?

My mother taught me. Then nature taught me. Now His Spirit guides me.

Was it not men that taught you that the Qu'ran is not from God, nor are the Upanishads, the book of Mormon, the Tao, the Analects, nor the Gita?

No. I read the Mormon bible and discarded it. I haven't read the others and don't intend to....

The path of "I don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches." leads to nihilism and ennui. It leaves you as a hermit with little more knowledge (nor future) than a beast of the wilderness, and certainly without your Christianity intact. You don't want to go there, and you certainly don't have to do so.

WW, you accept the teaching of man on many things, including your Bible and your Christianity. You only have yet to admit it.

Papias

You are mixing apples and oranges. I repeat....when man teaches us and that teaching is DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of what our Father has taught us then a decision must be made. Mine was.


.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

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. Specifically an ape becoming a man.

Just to check with you of where we are in this debate: I think you would agree that:

1. breeding produces new kinds of organisms- cattle, dogs, roses, etc. etc.

2. what defines a new kind is that the organism has a new and unique set of characteristics, and that those characteristics are genetic- they are linked to a specific DNA structure in that organism that is passed on from generation to generation.

If you agree that #1 and #2 are correct, then you have already admitted that you believe in evolution! It's really that simple!

So let's keep going:

3. you believe, as I do too, that the Bible teaches that God originally created only one person- Adam. But without being able to reproduce, every living thing dies out; we often forget that Adam on his own couldn't have survived and kept the human race going! So God created Eve and they were able to procreate.

4. now for some reason, you seem to have great difficulties admitting that Adam and Eve's offspring at some point changed- mutated. So one fine day, there was a little Chinese baby in the cradle, or maybe a little black kid, or maybe one of the Indian folk. Of course, maybe Adam and Eve were actually of a different ethnic type than we so naively assume- and the white folks were the product of a later mutation.

O.K.- I'll stop here for now. I want to keep this simple. Notice that in all the dialogue above, I never have strayed into the dangerous territory of suggesting that a different species was produced in any of the interactions described.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

Just to check with you of where we are in this debate: I think you would agree that:

1. breeding produces new kinds of organisms- cattle, dogs, roses, etc. etc.

2. what defines a new kind is that the organism has a new and unique set of characteristics, and that those characteristics are genetic- they are linked to a specific DNA structure in that organism that is passed on from generation to generation.

If you agree that #1 and #2 are correct, then you have already admitted that you believe in evolution! It's really that simple!

Oh please! Would you stop this silliness. How many times have I said....I am talking about man evolving from apes. It is a lie. That is where I began this debate and that is where I am now. The question is will you continue to accept the word of man over that of our Father for that is what you are doing and can't seem to deal with.

So let's keep going:

3. you believe, as I do too, that the Bible teaches that God originally created only one person- Adam. But without being able to reproduce, every living thing dies out; we often forget that Adam on his own couldn't have survived and kept the human race going! So God created Eve and they were able to procreate.

No I don't believe that. Have you read anything at all that I've written? The Bible doesn't teach that God created only one person.

4. now for some reason, you seem to have great difficulties admitting that Adam and Eve's offspring at some point changed- mutated. So one fine day, there was a little Chinese baby in the cradle, or maybe a little black kid, or maybe one of the Indian folk. Of course, maybe Adam and Eve were actually of a different ethnic type than we so naively assume- and the white folks were the product of a later mutation.

I have difficulty with it because IT IS A LIE. No one mutated. No person of one race magically became of another race anymore than an ape magically became a man. Read your Bible and ask Him for understanding. It's there. It's written. Open your eyes.

O.K.- I'll stop here for now. I want to keep this simple. Notice that in all the dialogue above, I never have strayed into the dangerous territory of suggesting that a different species was produced in any of the interactions described.

.

You are wise to stay away from saying that.

 

[Assyrian]

Flat earth and geocentrism do NOT line up with Scripture and are not mentioned. Rather they were man's interpretation, what man believed...they were mistaken. Reality is truth and truth is written. Evolution not only isn't written but is in direct opposition to what is written. Either evolution is truth or creation is truth....one or the other.

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

John 17:17,19 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
(19) And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
​

11 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

​

So I ask you....As His word is truth, As we are sanctified through truth, As we must worship Him in truth, As all scripture is truth and profitable for learning truth....then should we not pay attention to what is written and always choose it over man's ideas when those ideas are in direct conflict with Scripture?

You realise you have done just that yourself? You have denied the literal meaning of the flat earth and geocentric passages because you believe man's ideas that the earth is spherical and goes round the sun.

I completely agree with the passage you quote about God's word being truth, the problem is you have two contradictory methods of dealing with apparent conflicts between science and scripture, yet you insist on each one as the only possible way for a believer to approach scripture.

When sceince contradicts the flat earth and geocentric interpretations of scripture, that cannot possible be the real meaning of scripture, the people who interpreted scripture that way must have been mistaken.

Yet when science contradicts the special creation interpretation, you don't say that cannot be what the bible means the interpretation must be a mistake, instead this time you insist the science must be wrong. Why say the interpretation must be wrong for some sciences, and the bible says the science is a lie for other sciences? How do you choose which sciences to believe? It is not because the bible says it evolution is a lie, you could just as easily say the bible says heliocentrism is a lie instead of deciding the interpretation is wrong.

He was the beginning of the line to the Savior....He was a literal man as Christ also was literal.

Who say Adam was the beginning of the line to the saviour? The bible doesn't. Remember Luke's genealogy was only 'supposed', and went through Joseph who wasn't Jesus dad.

If you see "after his kind" as being the choice in a partner and not in reproduction then this is another avenue of disagreement in understanding. To me, it clearly means each species produces the same species.

Oh no, I am not say "after his kind" means choose a partner of your own species, that comes up in other OT commands, Leviticus is quite insistent about that sort of behaviour. But "after his kind" is not about reproduction being restricted to kinds either, it simply means different types of organism.

I have. I have asked that a decision be made between the written Word and Darwin's theory. There is no room for both.

Yet you are quite happy with the theories Copernicus and Erathostenes.

Only when they claim it. Have I?

You brought up the discussion

That isn't the only issue pointing to the lie of evolution.

Or the problem with literalism.

As for God's time...He also tells us that His day is as a thousand years.

That's the passage. It also says a thousand years are as a couple of hours in the night, or a human lifespan like a day.

Pictures of ape and human skulls...stong similarity. I see the same similarity when I go to the zoo but I never called one of them daddy.

I should hope not, they are just distant cousins. But it is not just the strong similarity, so similar that even creationist cannot decide which skulls are really human and which are ape. More important is the fact that the further back in time you go the more similar we are to other apes. Remember you said:

For evolution to be true there would be evidence everywhere of folks morphing from creatures...there are none. We have skeletal remains of many things from ancient times but...not man and not man in evolving stages. Why? There are none.
​

But that is exactly what we see, the shape of skull changing over millions of years from very clearly ape all the way to modern humans. I am not sure what else you expect in terms of "folks morphing from creatures" than the fossil record we already have.

Thank you for quoting that...I have never noticed it before. However, here we must rightly divide the word. There is work, such as the work that continues today, which you have pointed out and then there is the work that ended for He tells us....."God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." The work He "had made," was the creation of "heavens, earth and all the host." FINISHED, past tense! They didn't evolve but were ended and then...He rested.

So rightly dividing the word, can you say which works were finished and which continue?

Psalm 104:29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
Isaiah 41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it...
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you...
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals...
Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:

Tell me, do you know when a new day began in the bible?

Good question Assyrian. No.

But, if I were to guess it would be the eighth day formation of Adam, when "man became a living soul." Eight means new beginnings and that eighth day was...a new beginning.

No sorry, my question was what time of day each new day begins.


To be...

 

[Assyrian]

...continued

We read this differently Assyrian. According to their kinds, to me, is about each creation having their own kind. It is no different than....

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

The question is, does 'after his kind' refer to the verb in the subclause 'whose seed was in itself' or to the main verb 'And the earth brought forth grass, and herb ...and the tree'? It certainly refers to the main verb in all the other passages.
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
If kind referred to reproduction, why was it only mentioned with plants but not with fish and land animals? What you have in each section is
(1) a command to produce these creature or saying God created them
(2) a list of the different main types of creature with a short description of them
(3) we are told this was according to their kind.
But according to their kind refers to the command to produce these different creatures, not the subclauses, unless God is commanding creepy crawlies to creep according to their kind too. If we look back in verses 11&12 trees bearing fruit and herbs bearing seed is simply a more detailed description of the herbs and trees, the same as birds are winged and sea creatures swarm. According to their kind refers to God's command to the earth to sprout vegetation, all the different type of plant according to its kind
Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Funny that grass and trees are referred to as "his kind," rather than it's kind.

Another verse that makes you delve deeper (if you, as I, believe in creatures other than humans and literal fowl flying in our skies).....

It is because, unlike English, nouns have masculine or feminine gender which is separate issue from whether the thing itself is male or female. Tree ets is a masculine noun in Hebrew.

Genesis 1:20-23 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. 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. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
​

The waters bring forth fowl...fowl that flies and multiples in the earth. And yes, I know this is a stretch but it is what I'm seeing.

But nothing about reproducing according to their kind.

More is being said Assyrian. Using "of the field" and "of the earth" isn't a happenstance or style of writing.

How do you know?

No, what I think doesn't matter. What is written does. Was it written that the sun goes around the earth? No. Man assumed...man was wrong.

They interpreted the passages literally, just as you do with Adam being made of clay. The sun stopping when Joshua commanded it meant the sun must have been moving across the sky. It say after the miracle the sun hurried to the place it sets. It says God makes the sun rise. Ecclesiastes describes the sun setting and hurrying to the place it rises. The bible also describes the earth bring established and not moving. Christians before Copernicus's time took these passage at face value in its plain literal sense describing the earth fixed in the cosmos with the sun and moon moving across the sky and under the earth when the sun set.

Scripture didn't say...man assumed.

It is called interpretation. They interpreted the passage literally and got it wrong.

Yes, we seem to.

The difference is Genesis is one Book of God's account. It is written that way for a reason.

The bible is a book made up of many different books. Genesis is a book made up of different books and documents too. Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generation of Adam.

Would He tell us, in parable form, that something happened a certain way when...it happened a completely different way, a way that conflicts with the literal or figurative (however you wish to understand it) way it was written?

If it is being told in parable form, it is not telling you the way it actually happened.
Compare God's metaphorical description of crossing the Red Sea with what literally happened.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exodus 15:19 For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.

I can't think of any writing saying....you must read Genesis literally, but the following demonstrate that it happened as written....

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The beginning, to me, is the very beginning.
​

Indeed, however 'true' does not mean it has to be literal. Jesus parables are true too. Matt 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in His time: also He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

No man would include Darwin.​

Scientists realise there is much they do not understand, that is why they are still doing all that research. Creationists seem to think they have things a lot more sewn up, not only knowing exactly how things were made, but frequently have the end of the world figured out too

But well spotted. I am surprised that verse does not come up more often in these discussions.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

At the beginning we were made to produce...we didn't evolve into that capacity.
​

It would be pretty difficult to evolve a capacity to reproduce if you were not able to reproduce to evolve it. No, reproduction came first. It was variations in the reproduction that allowed evolution. So to answer your point, from the very beginning the human race was male and female.

11 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
​

All things are as they were....we don't evolve into something else.​

Isn't Peter criticising this view?

The point is...scripture didn't change. It was, as you said...their interpretation that was wrong. It isn't written that the earth is the middle of the universe but man thought it up. We may have "vastly more evidence" for understanding the adaptation species make (still within their specific, kind after kind, group) over time but not for man evolving from ape.

Oh there is loads of evidence for that too. Not just the gradual change in fossils from early ape to human, but also a whole load of genetic similarities.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Doesn't change the fact there was evidence in the text of Genesis that made Christian and Jewish scholars think Genesis was meant to be interpreted figuratively, while no one saw any indiaction in the geocentric passages that they were not to be take literally.

I thought of that very thing yesterday. We'll get there.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
.​

1Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. ​

 

[Cabal]

I was led to write the OP, I was moved here and I have responded to questions...who knows, maybe God wanted to open some eyes.

Too much to hope for that you even consider the possibility that it might be your eyes that need opening.

But no, you seem quite content judging the ideas of others despite having no education on the matter.

 

[Cabal]

When I know something is a lie I accept it is such and don't keep files on who said Lucy was a lie and when it was said.

Ah yes, 1whirlwind, arbiter of truth, who must answer to no-one....



Seriously, these games are getting tiring. What is your evidence?

I accept it and see no need to back that up at all. Why? Because we have His Word to guide us and that is the back-up I offer you.

You have a high opinion of your opinion, I'll give you that much.

Choose Him or choose Darwin.

False dichotomy fail. Any other glaring errors you'd like to make today?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

No I don't believe that. Have you read anything at all that I've written? The Bible doesn't teach that God created only one person.

I've read what your interpretation about how many people YOU think God originally created- but is there even one person participating here that agrees with you???

Genesis 2:

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 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 had to start somewhere- so he started with ONE MAN. But of course, without Eve, that ONE MAN would have not have been able to procreate.

Only after Eve came on the scene could they have had children, and could MANKIND- the many different races with their genetically-unique and inherited DNA- have been produced.

And let me remind you once again that the story of Noah and the flood provides additional indisputable prove that Noah and his sons came first, and only then could mankind- with its many races- follow.

It is amazing to me that you continue to take a Biblical truth that I would think 99.9999% of Christians would agree with, and stubbornly cling to a different explanation that simply doesn't make any sense.

I really think you need to prayerfully consider what your intransigent position is doing: do you honestly think it is uplifting our faith, or bringing it into disrepute?

.

 

[philadiddle]

Does a frog produce a dog? Any kind of a dog?

Does a tree frog give birth to a poison dart frog? Since the answer to that is "no", then I guess we can agree that they don't share a common ancestor and God must have created them separately.

You are completely avoiding any kind of concrete definition of the words you are using. It reveals the strength of your argument.