Creationists

[koshergrl]

And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion. God says nothing about "how", only "why". This is why you are fail here. You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.

Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

So you are a Literalist. Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible. That's fine. You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect. Why? You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory. That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.

No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.

Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.

Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.

 

[koshergrl]

What he is saying is that Christians have no credibility, because they believe in God. It's a form of bigotry, like saying blacks are unintelligent.

 

[Montrovant]

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?

Does your god have DNA?

Angels have taken the form of man but are spirits. God has taken the form of a man but is a spirit. DNA I don't know but I suppose they do when they take the form of a man.

That's not really answering the question. Does god look like a man? Not can he when he chooses to, but does he normally?
Could man being made in god's image be talking about us having a soul (or something along those lines) rather than physical appearance?

 

[Montrovant]

What he is saying is that Christians have no credibility, because they believe in God. It's a form of bigotry, like saying blacks are unintelligent.

Wow, that was an amazing interpretation of the posts!

 

[koshergrl]

People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.

 

[Montrovant]

But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion. God says nothing about "how", only "why". This is why you are fail here. You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.

Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?

 

[Montrovant]

People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, god is man-like in appearance with two arms, two legs, etc.?

Does your god have DNA?

Angels have taken the form of man but are spirits. God has taken the form of a man but is a spirit. DNA I don't know but I suppose they do when they take the form of a man.

That's not really answering the question. Does god look like a man? Not can he when he chooses to, but does he normally?
Could man being made in god's image be talking about us having a soul (or something along those lines) rather than physical appearance?

A spirit is unseen to the eyes unless they materialize.

I don't believe the soul is what many denominations teach.

Biblical Word of the Month - Soul
By: Jeff A. Benner



What is the soul? Webster' Dictionary gives the following definition. "The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state." In most cases people will understand the soul through this definition. But, as I have so often stated, our interpretation of Biblical words should be from a Hebraic perspective, not a modern western perspective such as English.


The Hebrew word translated as "soul" is the word nephesh (Strong's #5315). If we look at the various ways in which this word is translated in an English translation, such as the KJV, we will see a wide variation in its interpretation. Some of these translations include; soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, dead, desire, man, appetite, lust, thing, self, beast, pleasure, ghost, breath and will. What exactly does this word mean?


I had always assumed that only humans had a soul but, it was during a study of the word "soul" that I discovered that translations often influence how we interpret Biblical concepts. In Genesis 2:7 we find that man is a "living soul" and in Genesis 1:21 we find that animals are "living creatures". When I first started using a concordance to look up the original Hebrew words I was amazed to find out that these two phrases were the identical Hebrew phrases - nephesh chayah. Why would the translators translate nephesh chayah as "living soul" in one place and "living creatures" in another? It was this discovery that prompted me to learn the Hebrew language.


In the Hebrew mind we are composed of three entities; body, breath and mind. In future issues we will examine each of these but for now let us simply make some general definitions for them. The body is the flesh, bones and blood, the vessel. The mind is ones thoughts and emotions. The breath is ones character, what makes a person who they are.


The soul is the whole of the person, the unity of the body, breath and mind. It is not some immaterial spiritual entity it is you, all of you, your whole being or self.



Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine

 

[Youwerecreated]

But you are not God's prophet, Youwerecreated, so I am not concerned about your opinion. God says nothing about "how", only "why". This is why you are fail here. You try to mix the sacred and profane, so no wonder you fail.

Yes, you think evolution is a salvation issue.

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?

Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.

But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?

Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?

Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.

But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?

Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.

Science doesn't include the story of Adam.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it does.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent

It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Of course it does.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent

It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.

Theobald also notes that the support for a universal common ancestor does not rule out the idea that life emerged independently more than once.

Does the story of Adam say the above? That's from your first link.

Those precise mathematical results showed that in a world obeying the simplified assumptions, the most recent common ancestor would have lived less than 1,000 years ago.

Your 2nd link isn't even science, it's math, so I'd like to see a scientific source that agrees that humans all have a common ancestor from 1,000 years ago. Which is an even crazier suggestion than you fundies have made.

Thank you

 

[koshergrl]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

 

[Montrovant]

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

Are you saying nothing died before sin entered the earth, or just man didn't die?

Don't know for sure because death did not enter until sin entered.

But if man was once an ape did they die before adam sinned according to your theory ?

Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

That does not mean once adam sinned he died he lived on but eventually died and so has every living creature since that time.

I ask because if nothing died before sin, it seems that would mean that nothing could eat, either. If you meant only humanity did not die, or just that nothing died of age, that would be a different story.

If I were to have a theory, it would not include the biblical story of Adam, so your question makes no sense.

 

[koshergrl]

Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.

Why? You realize this is silly, right?

 

[Montrovant]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

Is the idea of a common ancestor the same as the biblical story of Adam? Perhaps the implication you mention is wrong, but so, I think, is the idea that science 'absolutely does' support the story of Adam.

 

[Montrovant]

Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.

Why? You realize this is silly, right?

Of course it's silly. That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth". That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died. It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that. A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course it does.

The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life: Scientific American

'Most Recent Common Ancestor' Of All Living Humans Surprisingly Recent

It has been established that we all have a common ancestor. We have one every so often, so it certainly hasn't been ruled out that we all descend from a single man. In fact, it's a given.

Theobald also notes that the support for a universal common ancestor does not rule out the idea that life emerged independently more than once.

Does the story of Adam say the above? That's from your first link.

Those precise mathematical results showed that in a world obeying the simplified assumptions, the most recent common ancestor would have lived less than 1,000 years ago.

Your 2nd link isn't even science, it's math, so I'd like to see a scientific source that agrees that humans all have a common ancestor from 1,000 years ago. Which is an even crazier suggestion than you fundies have made.

Thank you

Theobald is no different then dawkins,they're both Idelogues. And notice his admittence is half way he acknowledges a recent common ancestor but always has to add that but. Typical of your side