You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?
Upvote
0
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.
Personally I think humans are the only animals able to perceive objective morality - although defining it has always been difficult. The same action which might be normal for an animal would be sinful for a human. Our ability to perceive, and go against, objective morality is what makes man sinful.
But that's just my opinion.
Oddly I often see creationists and atheists use the same arguments. Some argue that if the dark side of man's nature is evolved then it cannot be sinful.
I'm not sure which chemicals they used so I can't give you many more details.
You misunderstand. Sin is not the result of evolution. If they were we would expect animals which are closely to humans to be more moral than other animals, which isn't the case. A chimp cannot commit sin, no more than an earthworm can.mathetes123 said:You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?
You didn't answer the question. Do you see how evolution undermines the gospel? Why did Jesus have to die for man's sins if mans sins were the product of random chance?
Charles Darwin agreed...
Quote: "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly find gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
(The Origin of the Species, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp 140, 141, 227)
The problem that existed in his time is the same problem evolutionists have today. But they refuse to be embarrassed about it. They prefer to pretend.
You need to be careful with out of context quotes like this you hear from Creationists. Darwin was not agreeing the fossil record should be filled with innumerable transitional forms, but was answering a potential criticism that it should be. If kirkwhisper had read the chapters instead of lifting the quote out of a creationist quotemine* he would have seen that Darwin asks the question specifically to address the issue. I am not sure why evolutionists are supposed to be embarrassed by misunderstandings of the fossil record that have been addressed.Exactly!
Evolution would not necessarily tend toward speciation with distinct groups of animals, but we should see all sorts of transitional beings between different species existing alongside those species.
I don't believe those synthetic bacteria were created from non-life.
Craig Ventner replaced the DNA in a cell with synthetic version of the DNA from another cell. Encoded in the DNA were the names of the scientist involved, three quotations:I'm not sure which chemicals they used so I can't give you many more details.
Sin is a product of us disobeying God's command. If you read the Genesis account, the snake may have pointed her in the right direction, but Eve was tripped up by her own natural desires Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.If there was not a literal Adam, and we were created by the process of evolution, then sin must have been an evolutionary byproduct. How can God hold us responsible for sin?
Assyrian said:Sin is a product of us disobeying God's command. If you read the Genesis account, the snake may have pointed her in the right direction, but Eve was tripped up by her own natural desires Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Who says I was accepting it as literal? I was looking at what the text said, and what it told us about sin, same as I would the story of the Prodigal Son. As you say words have meaning and this is true even when the story is a parable.Okay, so we are to accept the genesis account of creation as literal where it is convenient and then turn around 180 degrees and interpret it as allegory where convenient. Why not simply accept what it says. After all, words have meaning.
Physically speaking, yes. I wouldn't (and couldnt) disagree with you on this. But, its not the physical that separates us from the animal. Plants are monochotomous. All they are is physical. They have a body. They are controlled by the environment. Animals are dichotomous. They have a body and soul. They are not only shaped by their environment, they also react to other stimuli. They love, they feel, they think, they reason on their own level. Man is trichotomous. We are shaped by our environment (skin color), we react to other stimuli. But we have been given the spirit as well. This is NOT part of evolutionary process. Animals can not mutate into a spiritually controlled existence. So we are animals scientifically when it comes to physicalness since we all come from the earth. Ooh-ooh, ahh-ahh. But more importantly our spirit comes from God. This is what we were made in the image of. Not apes.It is certainly true that out of all the thousands of animal species, apes are the most like us in practically every way. So similar, in fact, that scientists classify us AS apes. So it's not just that we are "like" apes, but that we literally ARE apes (we are in the "ape" classification).
Smidlee said:I noticed on that chart there is no point made for the modern hobbits found severe years ago. Their skull size were around 400cc. This showed skull size doesn't mean less evolved, less human or less intelligent .
P.S I see why the hobbits were found after this chart were drawn so it's out-of-date now.
Do you think the discovery of homo floresiensis changes the evidence that human cranial capacity is the result of gradual increase in cranial capacity over the last three and a half million years?I noticed on that chart there is no point made for the modern hobbits found severe years ago. Their skull size were around 400cc. This showed skull size doesn't mean less evolved, less human or less intelligent .
P.S I see why the hobbits were found after this chart were drawn so it's out-of-date now.
There are extreme few so called human ancestor fossils and even less chimps. What it does show skull size can vary in a short period of time form small to large. I think evolutionist are so desperate to find this mythological creature that suppose to be the ancestor of chimps and man they will grab on to anything.Do you think the discovery of homo floresiensis changes the evidence that human cranial capacity is the result of gradual increase in cranial capacity over the last three and a half million years?
How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?There are extreme few so called human ancestor fossils and even less chimps. What it does show skull size can vary in a short period of time form small to large. I think evolutionist are so desperate to find this mythological creature that suppose to be the ancestor of chimps and man they will grab on to anything.
Evolutionist remind of the Jethro in Beverly Hillbillies when he went to school and had to put the shape pegs in the correct hole. He got out his pocket knife and cut away at the pegs so they would fit into the wrong holes.
I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors. The reason why we haven't seen them yet is the same reason we haven't found those chimp fossils.How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?
So you are saying the fossil record we have found so far supports evolution, you are just hoping something will eventually turn up to contradict it?I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors. The reason why we haven't seen them yet is the same reason we haven't found those chimp fossils.
Just because we haven't found them in the fossil record yet doesn't mean they weren't around.
Could be they were just apes or just men, or a mixture of apes and men. Or martians.How much paring did it take? The amazing thing about the skulls is they fit so beautifully. OK lets arbitrarily label one lot human and the other lot ape. Who would have thought there would be a line of human skulls would get smaller and smaller the further back in time you go? Who would have though that ape skull would get larger and larger? Sure you do get smaller and larger ape skulls, but the largest gorilla skulls are sitting on the shoulders of a 200kg silverback. Bigger animals have bigger skulls but scale as gorilla back down and its skull is smaller than a chimp's. With the fossil hominids we find, not only is the cranial capacity getting bigger and bigger as we go forward in time, it is getting bigger and bigger in proportion to its body, until somewhere along they line they meet up with fossils you want to label human who brains got smaller and smaller both in terms of actual size and in proportion to the size of their bodies as we look further back in time. Regardless of how you want to label the fossils as ape or human, isn't this the fossils record you would expect if humans had evolved from other earlier apes?
I have some family members with heads as huge as watermelons. Could be my ancestors.I going to use the evolution logic here and say just like we eventually found modern humans with small skulls so we will eventually find our big skull ancestors.
If humans and apes could interbreed in the pasts wouldn't that make them the same kind?Could be they were just apes or just men, or a mixture of apes and men. Or martians.
Aren't they a bit recent to be fossil human ancestry?I have some family members with heads as huge as watermelons. Could be my ancestors.
I didn't read the whole post. But my meaning remains the same. Just because we find different skulls in different areas or even in the same area we automatically assume through flawed data and biased opinions that they were some kind of humanoid instead of just a weird shaped skull from a human or ape. Who really knows?If humans and apes could interbreed in the pasts wouldn't that make them the same kind?
We have long life genes. And we age really fast. I went bald at 18.Aren't they a bit recent to be fossil human ancestry?
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?