Well, duh...

[The Barbarian]

You do understand Paul presented Genesis as literal and historical...you can find it in Timothy. Would you like me to show you the verse?

Yes, show us wherein Paul said it was a literal history. If your argument is that someone's mention of a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, I'll be happy to hear your reasoning.

Bible says Eve was the mother of all. Once again rules out evolutionism.

Once again..typical of you....no explanation.

 

[-57]

Yes, show us wherein Paul said it was a literal history. If your argument is that someone's mention of a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, I'll be happy to hear your reasoning.

It's super simple...You see Paul was presenting a particular rule to the women in the church.

Boy oh boy were the women annoyed and angry with Paul when they found out..... Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived....NEVER HAPPENED. How dare Paul present the basics for this rule supported by an analogy or myth.

Why would Paul convert the figurative event to a literal? Why would Paul lie to the women?

Once again..typical of you....no explanation.

Mother of all??? Come on man...Eve wasn't part of a population until she had children and they had children....

But then again according to your crowd....there really was no Eve to be the mother of all.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, show us wherein Paul said it was a literal history. If your argument is that someone's mention of a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, I'll be happy to hear your reasoning.

It's super simple...You see Paul was presenting a particular rule to the women in the church.

So he didn't say it was a literal history, after all? Why am I not surprised?

 

[The Barbarian]

Mother of all??? Come on man...Eve wasn't part of a population until she had children and they had children....

So the Bible doesn't say so? You just added that to God's word, and want us to believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

But then again according to your crowd....there really was no Eve to be the mother of all.

My "crowd" are Christians. And you're back to making up silly things you insist we have to believe.[/QUOTE]

 

[-57]

Yes, show us wherein Paul said it was a literal history. If your argument is that someone's mention of a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, I'll be happy to hear your reasoning.




So he didn't say it was a literal history, after all? Why am I not surprised?

What a strange view your crowd has....Paul lied and it's OK. Adam wasn't formed first like the Bible tells us. Eve wasn't deceived.

Your crowd has absolutely no explanation for the fall. You can't explain why, when or where and remain true to the Word of God.

 

[-57]

So the Bible doesn't say so? You just added that to God's word, and want us to believe it.

Being the mother of all is the furtherest thing from populations evolving....and you have the gaul to say I have added to the Bible?

 

[-57]

My "crowd" are Christians. And you're back to making up silly things you insist we have to believe.

[/QUOTE]

How can your crowd be christian when it denies the fall of Adam in the garden?

 

[The Barbarian]

How can your crowd be christian when it denies the fall of Adam in the garden?

How can you be Christian when you deny the Bible? When you figure that out, you'll have your answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

Being the mother of all is the furtherest thing from populations evolving....

Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. One of the reasons you keep failing here, is you have no idea what you're talking about.

and you have the gaul to say I have added to the Bible?

Ceasar had Gaul. But not me. You keep adding things to the Bible, because you don't approve of it as God gave it to us.

 

[-57]

How can you be Christian when you deny the Bible? When you figure that out, you'll have your answer.

So, I can't be a christian and believe is special creation and the fall of Adam in the garden as literal and historical?

 

[-57]

Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. One of the reasons you keep failing here, is you have no idea what you're talking about.



Ceasar had Gaul. But not me. You keep adding things to the Bible, because you don't approve of it as God gave it to us.

How did mankind fall?

 

[The Barbarian]

So, I can't be a christian and believe is special creation and the fall of Adam in the garden as literal and historical?

Actually, you may think that is denying the Bible, but it's not. The Bible takes no stand at all on the question of creationism/evolution. So creationists can be just as Christian as those who accept God's evolution of life.

Your denial is in adding new doctrines to the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

How did mankind fall?

Man's first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

 

[-57]

Actually, you may think that is denying the Bible, but it's not. The Bible takes no stand at all on the question of creationism/evolution. So creationists can be just as Christian as those who accept God's evolution of life.

Your denial is in adding new doctrines to the Bible.

Wow..you are truly mistaken...when Eve was formed from Adams rib...and mentioned as the mother of all....evolutionism died as the way mankind arrived on this planet.

Evolutionist have no answer for the fall and mans subsequent sin nature.

 

[-57]

Man's first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

For evo-ism to work you need to distort who "man" is and who "Adam and Eve" are.
Who do you change the first couple into?

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe, if you just accepted the Bible as it is, instead of trying to improve it, you'd feel better about your beliefs.

 

[nolidad]

Hmm...interesting.

Sounds very much like what my grandson's old fifth grade science book says and that was from 4 yrs. ago. I would quote what it says about bacteria mutation and penicillin resistance but I don't want to take the time so this is just a portion. Note: what's no longer being controlled is the production of the chemical penicillinase.

Penicillin-resistant bacteria already had the DNA information for the "new" features present; the mutation takes away the ability to control how this information is used.

Mutation almost always causes loss of information not gain.

EDIT: that was 4 not 10 yrs. ago

It is extremely hard (actually impossible) to go from microbes to man over 600 million yearts via evolution via mutations! Most mutations (99%+) carry a genetic load that ultimately reduces the viability of a species, not bring it to ever higher order of complexity.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is extremely hard (actually impossible) to go from microbes to man over 600 million yearts via evolution via mutations!

It would take at least a billion and a half, based on genetic data. Would you like to see why?

Fortunately, we have several billion years of life's history on Earth.

But I'd be pleased to see your math and the genetic data you analyzed with it. What do you have?

 

[Brightmoon]

Blind cave fish.

blind cave fish evolved . Vision takes a lot of energy in the brain . Without eyes they use less energy. Blindness is better for the species in the environment they live in. That’s natural selection . Btw biologists don’t use devolution to describe a lost of an attribute. For example Snakes evolved limblessness . It’s not a lack or deficiency as snakes are a very successful diapsid clade