Issues with Creation

[fragmentsofdreams]

we are both human, no?

Yes, but my flesh still differs from your flesh. Less than how it differs from an animal, but it still differs.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

we are both human, no?

So very, very human. Just look at my neck.

I LOVE EARTH!!!

 

[Faith In God]

But more to the point.

Fish flesh is indeed different to mammal flesh, evidenced by the fact that I like the taste of most of the latter (which I've eaten, anyway), and none of the former (which I have eaten, or tried to eat).

But this does not mean they do not have a common origin. French is different from Italian, but they both have the same origin in Latin.

loophole. they are different kinds of flesh. it is more like Latin and Greek are different languages. the only common ancestry is God's splitting of languages at babel, but that was not a slow deviation from the original.

 

[theFijian]

as for the bible, it is anti-evolution. Paul wrote about how man and animal have different kinds of flesh. kind of goes against the theory of common ancestry among all living organism.

The verse you are referring to is talking about the resurrection body. Man has a body which will be resurrected, animals do not. Do you see the point Paul is making?

 

[Faith In God]

The verse you are referring to is talking about the resurrection body. Man has a body which will be resurrected, animals do not. Do you see the point Paul is making?

You missed my post in response to this repeated post.

 

[theFijian]

You missed my post in response to this repeated post.

Apologies but I've been looking and can't find you're answer to my repeated post. Can you post a link?

 

[Faith In God]

Apologies but I've been looking and can't find you're answer to my repeated post. Can you post a link?

sure. #120

nicely explained away. Paul still said what he said, and would not speak lies into the word of God.

'All flesh is not the same'. that kind of goes against saying that all life came from a single source.

I see the point you made, but that does not falsify what Paul said.

 

[theFijian]

nicely explained away. Paul still said what he said, and would not speak lies into the word of God.

Nicely explained away?? You are trying to put words into Paul's mouth! Read the whole chapter please! Is he talking about the resurrected body or not?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Latin and Greek both did develop slowly from a common source in proto Indo-European. It's impossible to tell whether all languages have a common origin because in about 10,000 years, linguists reckon, a language no longer bears any similarity whatsoever to its ancestor of 10,000 years previously.

But I digress.

You are reading too much into Paul. He was not a histologist, and he's saying no more than that fish flesh is different from bird flesh and different from mammal flesh. His intention is not to teach you biology, as others have pointed out. "Kind" is not a word with any biological significance, as desperate, failed, attempts to define it by creationists have shown.

Your attempt to use it to rule out common descent is stretching the text far further than it was ever intended to be used, and is a bad hermeneutic of the highest order. Again, to use the language analogy, it's like taking the passage in Acts where people talk about all talking different languages, and using that to rule out common ancestry of languages.