Where Did Humans Come From?

[FaithT]

I'm not disputing the fossil record. Just interpreting it from an OEC perspective. Over your head? I don't think I said anything complicated. Scientists tend to view the Cambrian Explosion as consistent with evolution/adaptation. I would suspect it's more likely an example of special creations.

I'm not being clear?

Anyone else want to participate in this thread?

 

[FaithT]

I'm not disputing the fossil record. Just interpreting it from an OEC perspective. Over your head? I don't think I said anything complicated. Scientists tend to view the Cambrian Explosion as consistent with evolution/adaptation. I would suspect it's more likely an example of special creations.

I'm not being clear?

My church teaches the opposite of what Feser believes.

 

[The Barbarian]

I figure humans existed before Adam and Eve. They were the first two given living souls by God. I don't see the figurative language in Genesis to be a literal description. For one thing, if Eve was cloned from Adam, she would have only one x chromosome, and thus be male rather than female.

God could give her whatever chromosomes he wanted

If you get to toss in an unscriptural miracle anytime your beliefs don't fit the evidence, then any story is equally believable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scientists tend to view the Cambrian Explosion as consistent with evolution/adaptation.

Mostly because complex animals existed long before the Cambrian. The Cambrian seems to have coincided with the evolution of complete exoskeletons. (the Precambrian has examples of partially-covered organisms)

I would suspect it's more likely an example of special creations.

The gradual evolution of exoskeletons seems to be completely incompatible with special creation. Just one of the many things we see in the fossil record that does not fit special creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some will tell you that the Neanderthals, for example, were a branch of homo sapiens, but this is further from the truth in its DNA-analysis.

Humans of non-African descent have a good deal of Neanderthal genes, so if they weren't our own species, they were close enough to interbreed. I suspect that they were our species. Because there is only one biological human race today, they seem very different. But they really weren't. They don't vary from us more than many subspecies of other animals vary.

 

[The Barbarian]

If it helps, picture God as an engineer engaged in a process of learning and experimentation

That's completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible. A lot more like the "maybe a space alien" designer of the IDers.

 

[BPPLEE]

I figure humans existed before Adam and Eve. They were the first two given living souls by God. I don't see the figurative language in Genesis to be a literal description. For one thing, if Eve was cloned from Adam, she would have only one x chromosome, and thus be male rather than female.



If you get to toss in an unscriptural miracle anytime your beliefs don't fit the evidence, then any story is equally believable.

If you don't think creating a woman out of a rib is a miracle what do you call it?

 

[The Barbarian]

If you don't think creating a woman out of a rib is a miracle what do you call it?

Poofing a Y chromosome into an X is an unscriptural miracle. As I said, if you can imagine a miracle to cover every problem with you beliefs, than any story is equally believable.

 

[jhwatts]

You should smile because Jesus lives in your heart.

It is all by the blood.

Revelation 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

John 1: 1-4)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 9: 4-6)
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Acts 17:28
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 

[JAL]

That's completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible. A lot more like the "maybe a space alien" designer of the IDers.

The church, influenced by Greek philosophy, has been teaching the wrong view of God for 2,000 years. Had they taught the God of the Bible, especially what's implied of Him in Genesis 1, they would take my OEC stance.

 

[JAL]

The gradual evolution of exoskeletons seems to be completely incompatible with special creation. Just one of the many things we see in the fossil record that does not fit special creation.

I don't see any tension here. I think your assumptions stem from the Greek-based concept of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't see any tension here.

The evidence shows that there is.

I think your assumptions stem from the Greek-based concept of God.

Evidence is not assumption. Perhaps you've put too much confidence in your Greek-based concept of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

The church, influenced by Greek philosophy, has been teaching the wrong view of God for 2,000 years. Had they taught the God of the Bible, especially what's implied of Him in Genesis 1, they would take my OEC stance.

I see God as the omnipotent Creator. Sorry.

If it helps, picture God as an engineer engaged in a process of learning and experimentation

Sorry, your Greek philosophy may be consisted with a "trial and error' creation by God, but it is completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible.

 

[FaithT]

The church, influenced by Greek philosophy, has been teaching the wrong view of God for 2,000 years. Had they taught the God of the Bible, especially what's implied of Him in Genesis 1, they would take my OEC stance.

Are you talking about the Catholic Church or Christianity as a whole?

 

[JAL]

I see God as the omnipotent Creator. Sorry.



Sorry, your Greek philosophy may be consisted with a "trial and error' creation by God, but it is completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible.

Sure, then your job in refuting me should be easy.

All you'd have to do is resolve all the charges of contradiction and incoherence raised against Greek theism on this thread, in all my posts there. Until then, your words mean nothing to me. Admittedly it's a lot of posts because the number of problems is quite large.

Sorry but I don't thrive on contradictions and incoherence. That's your prerogative to do so.

 

[JAL]

Are you talking about the Catholic Church or Christianity as a whole?

All of it.

 

[JAL]

Sorry, your Greek philosophy may be consisted with a "trial and error' creation by God, but it is completely inconsistent with the omnipotent God of the Bible.

Wow. You really need to take a harder look at Genesis - and Scripture as a whole.

That's not easy to do, with 2,000 years of indoctrination into Greek theism.

Sorry, your Greek philosophy...

This looks like dishonest debate, accusing me of the very thing I repudiate.

 

[Tolworth John]

somewhat of a twisted straw man, isn't it?

No you said " I have listen to and read the work of many professors, anyone who insists on taking the bible literally is not a bible scholar."

So either you are ignorant of what the bible says, not a bible scholar or as someone who is a bible scholar you believe it is not literal.

 

[Tolworth John]

I don't think you spent enough time proving that. You will find many historical problems, but that's because the Scriptures aren't meant to be taken literally in the historical sense.

Again you are right.

Jesus never lived, never died or rose again, paid for our sins .
The cities mention in the OT do not exist, there is no Jerusalem, Jericho etc etc, Egypt, Hitties, Babyleonans etc all do not exist they are the imaginary products of varrious scribes.


Please do your research again and you will find that the bible is a very accurate history book.

 

[disciple Clint]

No you said " I have listen to and read the work of many professors, anyone who insists on taking the bible literally is not a bible scholar."

So either you are ignorant of what the bible says, not a bible scholar or as someone who is a bible scholar you believe it is not literal.

Are you going to pretend that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally?