Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Astrid]

It’s doesn’t matter it’s contradictory to scripture therefore it cannot be true. The only thing science has proven is there are similarities, they can’t actually prove that we are descendants.

Do you care to prove that anything contrary to
( your chose reading of your chosen book)
cannot be true?

 

[Astrid]

Are you familiar with the definition of the word “evidence”? Evidence isn’t proof of anything, evidence is merely information that can support a proposition or idea, but can also be false.

Are you familiar with the word "science"?
Or " justice"? Or math?

Math does proof.

Science and law work with
" beyond a reasonable doubt"
Not proof. Never proof.


Your demands for proof are unreasonable.

And, uneducated.

ALSO-
IF the ToE were false, somewhere in the
wide world there would be at least one
( actually, countless) facts to DISPROVE it.

Not one has ever been found.



You are working with " not one fact to
disprove the prosecutions case, but i vote
guilty anyway, coz its how i happen to feel"


Games with words such as you've been playing come to
ZERO.

All the evidence is for evolution. Zero against.



Unreasonable doubt is what you have.


To,argue against any theory, ypu need facts.
Data. Evidence, if you like.


Got some? If not anything else you say is just blather.

 

[sfs]

Are you familiar with the definition of the word “evidence”? Evidence isn’t proof of anything, evidence is merely information that can support a proposition or idea, but can also be false.

"Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

It’s doesn’t matter it’s contradictory to scripture therefore it cannot be true.

It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?

The only thing science has proven is there are similarities,

That's not true.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?

You want scriptural proof no problem.

“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Is God a monkey? Was Jesus incarnated or born as a monkey?

“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This says that God formed man from dust from the ground not a monkey. And does your “evidence” say that man descended from monkeys 6000 years ago? Because the genealogy records in the scriptures give a complete line of descendants from Adam all the way to Jesus Christ and the number of years that took place that add up to just over 6000 years. The Bible also specifically states that Adam was the first man.

“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬

So how do you interpret these verses in such a manner that they don’t contradict your idea of evolution?

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

It's contradictory to your interpretation of the scriptures. Plenty of other Christians throughout history have had other ways of interpreting the Bible. Isn't it a little arrogant to assume, without proof, that yours is the only correct one?

That's not true.

Why did you give the definition of the word “proof”?

 

[sfs]

“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Is God a monkey?

So you think God is human? That our role as God's image is about our physical form and that God has literal arms and legs and a gall bladder? You don't think that God was made out of dust, do you? So we can bear God's image even though we were made out of dust and he isn't, why would it be a problem to bear God's image if we were made out of monkeys? (Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)

Remember, I was asking why you thought your approach to interpreting scripture was the only correct one. Simply quoting a bunch of Bible passages and offering your interpretation does nothing at all to answer that question.

“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

So I'll quote Origen on the correct interpretation of the creation account:
"So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning."

My question was, what reason do you have to think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Origen?

“So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭45‬ ‭NASB1995‬

So how do you interpret these verses in such a manner that they don’t contradict your idea of evolution?

Paul was engaging in a kind of loose, typological interpretation of a sacred text that is, if not actually midrash is as at least related to. Such interpretations do not require that the original passage had the literal meaning being applied to it. Do you really think Moses wore a veil in Exodus to conceal the fact that the Law was passing away? Yet that's how Paul interprets the passage in II Corinthians.

 

[sfs]

Why did you give the definition of the word “proof”?

Because it shows that evidence supporting the truth of something is exactly what 'proof' is, which you denied.

I'd much rather deal with the evidence itself that talk about what we call it, though. So are you willing to look at some evidence for common descent?

 

[BNR32FAN]

(Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)

Oh by all means please do enlighten me. Simply saying I got it wrong with no explanation is just a cop out to hide your inexperience on scriptural comprehension.

My question was, what reason do you have to think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Origen?

Oh absolutely I believe I’m a better interpreter than Origen. He was the absolute worst Bible interpreter of all the early church writers. Which is why the 5th ecumenical council issued 19 anathemas on his writings some of which included his teaching on the salvation of satan, preexisting souls, and universal reconciliation. You couldn’t have picked a worst person to quote.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So you think God is human? That our role as God's image is about our physical form and that God has literal arms and legs and a gall bladder? You don't think that God was made out of dust, do you? So we can bear God's image even though we were made out of dust and he isn't, why would it be a problem to bear God's image if we were made out of monkeys? (Also, you really should study some about what "God's image" likely meant.)

Remember, I was asking why you thought your approach to interpreting scripture was the only correct one. Simply quoting a bunch of Bible passages and offering your interpretation does nothing at all to answer that question.

So I'll quote Origen on the correct interpretation of the creation account:
"So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning."

My question was, what reason do you have to think you're a better interpreter of the Bible than Origen?

Paul was engaging in a kind of loose, typological interpretation of a sacred text that is, if not actually midrash is as at least related to. Such interpretations do not require that the original passage had the literal meaning being applied to it. Do you really think Moses wore a veil in Exodus to conceal the fact that the Law was passing away? Yet that's how Paul interprets the passage in II Corinthians.

You didn’t accomplish anything here other than to say that the scriptures can mean whatever you want them to mean. There is only one truth and it is not subjective to personal or popular opinion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because it shows that evidence supporting the truth of something is exactly what 'proof' is, which you denied.

I'd much rather deal with the evidence itself that talk about what we call it, though. So are you willing to look at some evidence for common descent?

There’s a distinct difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can appear to support an idea that is absolutely false while proof can ONLY support an idea that is absolutely true. What you are referring to about evidence for evolution is inconclusive evidence, it’s not proof of evolution it’s information that supports the possibility of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

There’s a distinct difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can appear to support an idea that is absolutely false while proof can ONLY support an idea that is absolutely true. What you are referring to about evidence for evolution is inconclusive evidence, it’s not proof of evolution it’s information that supports the possibility of evolution.

Could you please please please just
STOP using the word " proof" in connection
with science ?
If there's any merit in anything you say, it is
ruined by the insistence on arguing against
a concept that does not exist in science.

This has been explained like 10,000 times!
You do yourself no favour or credit by
making the same mistake ober and over.


That said, the point you tried to make, that there
is only evidence, no,final,conclusion about evolution-
Sure, true, but news of the obvious and very well known.
Pointless to say it.

What you leave out is that All relevant data from every
field of research is consistent with ToE.

That's kind of a lot " for".


There is zero against.

If that isn't enough for you or anyone else to
just accept it, i'm here to say your standards are absurd.

And a half step from insanity, as if the same demands
we're made for everything g about you, life would
quickly spin seemingly out of control.

But surely you see where you nare selectively making
wildly excessie demands for ToE.

 

[driewerf]

it’s contradictory to scripture .

That's than too bad for scripture.

 

[Astrid]

That's than too bad for scripture.

Scrip would be so much easier to believe if it
just matched reality.

 

[driewerf]

Only on paper.

No, not only on paper. The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.
What you guys have is just a paper book.

 

[Astrid]

No, not only on paper. The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.
What you guys have is just a paper book.

If the " you guys" referred to had anything
there'd be no reason to just say things, with
no regard for truth or accuracy.

 

[driewerf]

Have you looked at the evidence with an open mind?

No, i don't need to

Of course not. Looking at the evidence for evolution works much better with a closed mind. A mind so closed it is impermeable for even the tiniest piece of new information. That is why creationist are ruminating the same wrong talking points over and over again, incapable of even understanding that what was wrong and irrelevant 40 years ago still is wrong and irrelevant. See Kent Hovind (and his son Eric) still using the same material over and over again.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many pieces of evidence that only make sense if we actually are the descendants of apes, or at least no one to date has offered any alternative explanation that makes sense.

Unless the evidence is "chiseled" to dovetail together.

 

[AV1611VET]

So is Pi= 3.14

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, not only on paper.

Yes, indeed, my friend.

Only on paper.

The evidence for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is in the fossil record, in our blood, in our anatomy, in our metabolism and in our genes.

If you stare at it hard enough, you'll probably end up seeing it in there.

Throw in a little chiseling here and there, a little number crunching, and some connect-the-dots, and you're good to present it to the public as fact.

What you guys have is just a paper book.

It's not called "The Good Book" for nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the " you guys" referred to had anything there'd be no reason to just say things, with no regard for truth or accuracy.

It takes a lot of work to make the Bible disagree with reality

Nowadays computers are needed to keep them separate.