Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Have a look at my post #738 for more on this.Yet, you're willing to use an alternate translation (the NASU), yet you're not willing to believe translations such as the NIV, which says:[verse=Genesis 2:8,niv]Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/verse]Thus it appears you're under the impression that these two chapters are contradictory, and are willing to filter out anything that would reconcile them.
This is what it says in my Genesis commentary, "As a matter of fact, it would be quite legitimate to translate verse 19 as follows: 'Also out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and had brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.' The Hebrew conjunction waw can just can just as well be translated 'also' as 'and.' Furthermore, the word 'formed' as in the King James (Hebrew yatsar) can, in the context, legitimately be translated 'had formed.' In any case, the obvious intent of the passage is to tell us that certain of the animals, already in existence, were now brought at this time to be inspected by Adam. There is no contradiction, either real or apparent, with the 'official' order of creation in Genesis 1."
Yet, you're willing to use an alternate translation (the NASU), yet you're not willing to believe translations such as the NIV, which says:[verse=Genesis 2:8,niv]Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/verse]Thus it appears you're under the impression that these two chapters are contradictory, and are willing to filter out anything that would reconcile them.
Here's an interesting passage I found today, "Dawkins and others have recognized that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough ‘experiments’ (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4 to the power of 1000 possibilities—that is 10 to the power of 602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10 to the power of 80). If every atom in the universe represented an ‘experiment’ every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10 to the power of 100 of the possibilities for the gene. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot possibly find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that more than just one sequence may be functional to some extent." Another nail in the coffin for evolutionary theory.
I've just discovered another item which looks interesting http://creation.com/clash-over-origins
I think I'll get my hands on a copy of the DVD - it should be quite amusing to see the arguments for evolution shot down.
We have plenty of evidence that evolution has actually happened, so your efforts to prove it cannot happen are wasted.
There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that Darwinist evolution created humanity
And yet we share a coccyx; not only with our own species, but with the other apes. Some try to claim the coccyx has a "use" . . . but they cannot make the same claim for the muscle that would, if the coccyx were only still a tail, lift that tail. That muscle is not only useless, it is actually missing in over half of us.
That is evidence for Darwinist evolution.
And yet we share a coccyx; not only with our own species, but with the other apes. Some try to claim the coccyx has a "use" . . . but they cannot make the same claim for the muscle that would, if the coccyx were only still a tail, lift that tail. That muscle is not only useless, it is actually missing in over half of us.
That is evidence for Darwinist evolution.
The evidence goes one layer deeper. The vestigial structures are also consistent with the nested hierarchy. We don't see any mammals with vestigial flight feathers, or birds with vestigial nipples. We only see vestigial structures that are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.
Is that evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created all life we observe today?
The evidence goes one layer deeper. The vestigial structures are also consistent with the nested hierarchy. We don't see any mammals with vestigial flight feathers, or birds with vestigial nipples. We only see vestigial structures that are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.
No, it is evidence that evolution happened.
However, we have a naturalistic theory that accounts for the evolution we know has happened. There is no scientific evidence for anything but naturalistic mechanisms.
They were the first man and women on earth. There may have been male and female before Adam and Eve but Eve was the first women. If you do not understand the difference between a female and a women try looking in the dictionary. The biggest distinction being a female can be any age but a women is grown up and no longer a child. Also a male and female can be any animal. A man and women can only be human. Meaning they have a quality that makes them different from the animals.Eve lead people to conclude that they were the first man and women on earth so the authors attempted to trace their blood lines back to Adam and Eve.
I don't think anyone is questioning that evolution happens, the issue is with Darwinist evolution view and the alleged creation of all life we observe today (not abiogenensis) by only naturalistic mechanisms. There is absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for this particular view of evolution.
There is no scientific evidence that only Darwinist naturalistic mechanisms created humanity.
The fact that evolution occurred, which you have handsomely conceded, is actually evidence for the sufficiency of the scientific theory proposed to explain it. You have not established that the theory is an inadequate explanation.
There is scientific evidence in favor of evolution theory as currently understood.
Of course evolution has occurred. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions with no evidence based on the scientific method.
There is no scientific evidence for Darwinism.
They were the first man and women on earth. There may have been male and female before Adam and Eve but Eve was the first women. If you do not understand the difference between a female and a women try looking in the dictionary. The biggest distinction being a female can be any age but a women is grown up and no longer a child. Also a male and female can be any animal. A man and women can only be human. Meaning they have a quality that makes them different from the animals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?