Why do we look so much like apes?

[Assyrian]

I look at it from the human view as well as trying to absorbs God's view.
I'm open minded

Not that much of an argument then if you cannot even make up you mind about about the basis of your own argument

Paul certainly would not agree that dust or anything of the natural world would last forever. 2Cor 4:18 For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. It is because our bodies are made from the dust, from the material natural world they too are transient. This is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We need to be transformed, share in Jesus' resurrection, then they will no longer be perishable and mortal, but imperishable, immortal and spiritual. That is the order of God's creation 1Cor 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

 

[BrookeGF]

If you believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, then you know that God created us in His image.

26 Then God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. He will rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, and all the earth.

27 So He created man in His image
He created him in the image of God
He created them male and female
Genesis 1:26-27

Christians can ask God why we have similarities to monkeys when we get to heaven. You can also ask why He made birds with eyes, dogs with ears, why we reproduce similarly to mammals, why we all digest our food, etc...

God's design is very intelligent. I don't think He needed to use evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not that much of an argument then if you cannot even make up you mind <snip>...

Sure u bet. I think I already included enough references for people to decide.

 

[Assyrian]

Not that much of an argument then if you cannot even make up you mind <snip>...

Sure u bet. I think I already included enough references for people to decide.

I am not sure the relevance of your references or whether the people you quote are qualified to decide if the universe is going to last forever, the issue is what Paul thought the significance of being made from dust was. You know the bit you snipped out.

 

[Incariol]

If you believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word, then you know that God created us in His image.

26 Then God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. He will rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, and all the earth.

27 So He created man in His image
He created him in the image of God
He created them male and female
Genesis 1:26-27

Christians can ask God why we have similarities to monkeys when we get to heaven. You can also ask why He made birds with eyes, dogs with ears, why we reproduce similarly to mammals, why we all digest our food, etc...

God's design is very intelligent. I don't think He needed to use evolution.

No, he didn't "need" to. He doesn't "need" to do anything. And yet we can clearly see that He did use evolution, sooo...

 

[BrookeGF]

No, he didn't "need" to. He doesn't "need" to do anything. And yet we can clearly see that He did use evolution, sooo...

Evolution is always up for debate but you can't seriously say that He did use it. Since you're a Christian, I'm sure you understand why I take the Bible's Word over science. I'm not anti-science or anything but I trust God over man's theories.

 

[Incariol]

Evolution is always up for debate

Not really. I have a couple hundred .pdf's on my hard drive of research studies, a number of which document directly observed evolution. It happens.

but you can't seriously say that He did use it.

Sure I can. Why wouldn't I?

Since you're a Christian, I'm sure you understand why I take the Bible's Word over science. I'm not anti-science or anything but I trust God over man's theories.

Huh? No, not really. Genesis is pretty clearly mythological literature. It doesn't talk about how, mechanistically, God created. It just states that He did create, and give the spiritual narrative. What is important is the Fall, not the exact mechanism by which the physical universe came into being and all that.

 

[BrookeGF]

Not really. I have a couple hundred .pdf's on my hard drive of research studies, a number of which document directly observed evolution. It happens.



Sure I can. Why wouldn't I?



Huh? No, not really. Genesis is pretty clearly mythological literature. It doesn't talk about how, mechanistically, God created. It just states that He did create, and give the spiritual narrative. What is important is the Fall, not the exact mechanism by which the physical universe came into being and all that.

Do you mind sending me some sources to read more about evolution?

 

[Incariol]

Do you mind sending me some sources to read more about evolution?

Sure.

Experimental evolution of multicellularity

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

Observed Instances of Speciation

The Pelvis and Femur of Ardipithecus ramidus: The Emergence of Upright Walking

BMC Evolutionary Biology | Full text | Phylogeny and adaptive evolution of the brain-development gene microcephalin (MCPH1) in cetaceans

Brain Structure and Function, Volume 213, Number 3 - SpringerLink

BioOne Online Journals - Phylogenetic Analysis of the Evolution of Lactose Digestion in Adults

mtDNA Data Indicate a Single Origin for Dogs South of Yangtze River, Less Than 16,300 Years Ago, from Numerous Wolves

And any number of college-level biology textbooks.

 

[BrookeGF]

Thanks

 

[Smidlee]

Thanks

Beware evolutionist make their case look better that it actual is. For example after reading this
Observed Instances of Speciation
Read this to see just how poor Talk Origins examples are.
The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change

All this so called evidence depends on you believing evolution the begin with.
Here is a video that ORFans seriously challenge common descent.

P.S there are a few example found in nature where a specie "A" can mate with species "B" and "B" mates with "C" but "C" can't mate with "A". This muddy up evolution definition of species which is why they use complete reproductive isolation to define species even if there are no or little different between two groups.

 

[Keachian]

May I also offer this link
A closer look at a classic ring species: The work of Tom Devitt
Ring species while not having been seen as evolving are an excellent example of soeciation and showing how there are misconceptions about evolution in Creationist circles.

 

[BrookeGF]

Beware evolutionist make their case look better that it actual is. For example after reading this
Observed Instances of Speciation
Read this to see just how poor Talk Origins examples are.
The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change

All this so called evidence depends on you believing evolution the begin with.
Here is a video that ORFans seriously challenge common descent.

P.S there are a few example found in nature where a specie "A" can mate with species "B" and "B" mates with "C" but "C" can't mate with "A". This muddy up evolution definition of species which is why they use complete reproductive isolation to define species even if there are no or little different between two groups.

I like to see it from both sides. I'm not considering changing my position. But thanks, this will be useful information.

 

[Incariol]

Beware evolutionist make their case look better that it actual is. For example after reading this
Observed Instances of Speciation
Read this to see just how poor Talk Origins examples are.
The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change

All this so called evidence depends on you believing evolution the begin with.
Here is a video that ORFans seriously challenge common descent.

P.S there are a few example found in nature where a specie "A" can mate with species "B" and "B" mates with "C" but "C" can't mate with "A". This muddy up evolution definition of species which is why they use complete reproductive isolation to define species even if there are no or little different between two groups.

We're talking about evolution, not speciation, but don't worry, I did provide examples of speciation with reproductive isolation.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am not sure the relevance of your references or whether the people you quote are qualified to decide if the universe is going to last forever, the issue is what Paul thought the significance of being made from dust was. You know the bit you snipped out.

No no. The issue was what did I think. Not what do you think that Paul thought.
My answer was 208 biblical references to dust offered some in 13 translations each.
Bible and Library Search: dust

You gave the 2 references below. If you feel my research doesn't answer the question...that's fine.


Not that much of an argument then if you cannot even make up you mind about about the basis of your own argument.Paul certainly would not agree that dust or anything of the natural world would last forever. 2Cor 4:18 For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. It is because our bodies are made from the dust, from the material natural world they too are transient. This is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We need to be transformed, share in Jesus' resurrection, then they will no longer be perishable and mortal, but imperishable, immortal and spiritual. That is the order of God's creation 1Cor 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

 

[SkyWriting]

We're talking about evolution, not speciation, but don't worry, I did provide examples of speciation with reproductive isolation.

So your talking about "change", not "change" so you provided examples of "change" happening
where "these changes" were isolated from "those changes".

 

[SkyWriting]

Ring species while not having been seen as evolving are an excellent example of soeciation and showing how there are misconceptions about evolution in Creationist circles.

And in religious Evolution circles, I guess:

Models for the Evolution of Ring Species

to understand the relative importance of reproductive isolating barriers and the evolution of "ring species".

How does the phylogeny of the greenish warblers around the Tibetan Plateau help us to understand the evolution of ring species?

 

[Assyrian]

No no. The issue was what did I think. Not what do you think that Paul thought.

The reason you raised the idea of immortal dust in the first place was because of Paul's use of dust in 1Cor 15, so what Paul thought is very much the issue. I asked what you thought because you were quoting secular sources to make a claim about the immortality of dust that seem quite at odds with the tradition Christian view of this universe being temporal. Especially when you seemed so reticent to commit yourself to the idea. Showing that you as a Christian were uncomfortable with your argument was a stepping stone, clearing that argument out of the way, so we could get back to what Paul said.

My answer was 208 biblical references to dust offered some in 13 translations each.
Bible and Library Search: dust

You gave the 2 references below. If you feel my research doesn't answer the question...that's fine.

Not that much of an argument then if you cannot even make up you mind about about the basis of your own argument.Paul certainly would not agree that dust or anything of the natural world would last forever. 2Cor 4:18 For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. It is because our bodies are made from the dust, from the material natural world they too are transient. This is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We need to be transformed, share in Jesus' resurrection, then they will no longer be perishable and mortal, but imperishable, immortal and spiritual. That is the order of God's creation 1Cor 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.

Perhaps if you made a point from the 208 references rather than just linking to the verses.

 

[Keachian]

And in religious Evolution circles, I guess:

Models for the Evolution of Ring Species

to understand the relative importance of reproductive isolating barriers and the evolution of "ring species".

How does the phylogeny of the greenish warblers around the Tibetan Plateau help us to understand the evolution of ring species?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here

I'm trying to agree that

"There is no evolution in ring species."

Pass/Fail?

Models for the Evolution of Ring Species

to understand the relative importance of reproductive isolating barriers and the evolution of "ring species".

How does the phylogeny of the greenish warblers around the Tibetan Plateau help us to understand the evolution of ring species?