Humans did NOT evolve from Apes...

[Zoii]

Evolution might not fit genesis but we shouldnt be taking things so literal esp when there's so much evidence to support evolution, the big bang, and the science of our universe

 

[miknik5]

Evolution might not fit genesis but we shouldnt be taking things so literal esp when there's so much evidence to support evolution, the big bang, and the science of our universe

You can only go back as far as the physical evidence present from which scientists can draw their theory from

You can't go back to the beginning
From the original starting point before "evolution" (change) occurred

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can only go back as far as the physical evidence present from which scientists can draw their theory from

You can't go back to the beginning
From the original starting point before "evolution" (change) occurred

We don't need to go back to the beginning to know that evolution occurred. That is a common mistake that creationists make.

For example we do not need to go back to the night of your conception to know that you are a human being.

We can go back "far enough" to understand that all life is the product of evolution. We can go back far enough to know that the Bible is wrong if read literally.

 

[miknik5]

We don't need to go back to the beginning to know that evolution occurred. That is a common mistake that creationists make.

For example we do not need to go back to the night of your conception to know that you are a human being.

We can go back "far enough" to understand that all life is the product of evolution. We can go back far enough to know that the Bible is wrong if read literally.

See
The "creature" was there already and you can't go back to the very first..


"conception"

 

[Subduction Zone]

See
The "creature" was there already and you can't go back to the very first..


"conception"

If you want to limit God to abiogenesis that is not too far off from the truth. Though when that is explained you will need to move the goalposts again. But it still means that the stories of Genesis are refuted.

 

[miknik5]

If you want to limit God to abiogenesis that is not too far off from the truth. Though when that is explained you will need to move the goalposts again. But it still means that the stories of Genesis are refuted.

Limit HIM?

I don't think it is I who is limiting HIM


Doesn't the "goal posts" continue to move as new physical evidence is discovered

And if its not discovered to alter a theory, a theory still remains a theory correct?

With the possibility of changing as new info, data is discovered?

A scientisr can only go back as far as the available and physical data available to him

He can't do back to "in the beginning" prior to any matter existing

 

[Speedwell]

Limit HIM?

I don't think it is I who is limiting HIM

You do, in many ways--for instance in the way the universe and life were created, and as to the kind of written text He is allowed to inspire.

 

[miknik5]

You do, in many ways--for instance in the way the universe and life were created, and as to the kind of written text He is allowed to inspire.

You imply that HE takes present material in order to create

Who provided the present material

 

[miknik5]

You do, in many ways--for instance in the way the universe and life were created, and as to the kind of written text He is allowed to inspire.

HE, being the creator?
Do you then believe that HE IS?

 

[Speedwell]

You imply that HE takes present material in order to create

Who provided the present material

Good question. Creation ex materia is a respectable theological position, once popular with Christians (and taught by some Christian bodies still) until it was suppressed in favor of creation ex nihilo as a defense against Gnostic dualism.

 

[miknik5]

Good question. Creation ex materia is a respectable theological position, once popular with Christians (and taught by some Christian bodies still) until it was suppressed in favor of creation ex nihilo as a defense against Gnostic dualism.

Once popular with those who believe in THE CREATOR of the universe and all that exists in it?


Hmmm

 

[miknik5]

Gnostic dualism?
Whose thinking is that?

God's
Or man's

 

[Speedwell]

Once popular with those who believe in THE CREATOR of the universe and all that exists in it?


Hmmm

Yes. The third possibility is creation ex deo, in which God creates the universe out of His own being. All are equally biblical and have been advanced by theologians at one time or another.

Gnostic dualism?
Whose thinking is that?

God's
Or man's

Gnostics'

 

[miknik5]

Yes.

Gnostics'

They had to make a comparison in
the evidence before them in order to decide with their "intellect" what should be considered good and what should be considered bad

There has to be something present and there has to be some sort of manmade input and involvement (through their natural imperfect senses) to come to a conclusion that something is good or bad

And isn't that relative and subject to change also

 

[miknik5]

I'm not really sure how gnostic dualism has anything to do with the original starting point of creation

 

[Speedwell]

They had to make a comparison in
the evidence before them in order to decide with their "intellect" what should be considered good and what should be considered bad

There has to be something present and there has to be some sort of manmade input and involvement (through their natural imperfect senses) to come to a conclusion that something is good or bad

And isn't that relative and subject to change also

Evidently; there are very few Gnostics around these days.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not really sure how gnostic dualism has anything to do with the original starting point of creation

It doesn't. But the popularity of the Manichaean heresy in early Christian times was what motivated Christian theologians of the time to favor creation ex nihilo over creation ex materia.

 

[miknik5]

It doesn't. But the popularity of the Manichaean heresy in early Christian times was what motivated Christian theologians of the time to favor creation ex nihilo over creation ex materia.

So what again is your opinion that "Christians" no longer hold to?

 

[miknik5]

is it that GOD created out from nothing

The "nothing" being a soupy watery disorganized empty/void mass

 

[miknik5]

That is what most Christians (if not all) should believe