Originally posted by NickstenI'm not a theist, but I see no reason why a theist can't believe in evolution.
The fundamentals of evolution denies God! It conflicts with the Bible! Ask yourself this...
1. Did God create Adam or did evolution?
2. God took one of Adams' ribs and created Eve, did He really or did the Bible lie as evolution created Eve?
3. If we were made in the image of God, and Jesus was made in the image of God, God would not have had that image taken on another effect
as it makes no sense why.
So, if I pretend to be a theist for a moment, the answers to the questions are:
1) God created Adam through the process of evolution.
2) The story of the rib is not literal, but rather an indication that Eve was created through the same process as Adam. The Bible is not 'lying', but speaking in figurative language. The part where God breathes life into dust and creates Adam is figurative also. There was not a literal pile of dust that became Adam.
3) I don't understand the question. What does it mean that "God would not have had that image taken(sic) on another effect". What other effect, exactly?
Originally posted by RJHindsnothing of the sort is even remotely accurate. the rest of your post is based on this false premise and can be summarily dismissed.
[b]You say, "Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after
its origin." But since evolutionists do not understand how life started,
they have made wrong assumptions that invalidates the whole theory.
2 edits
Originally posted by BartsWe are talking of the teaching of Jesus Christ and attempts to reconcile a materialistic
You talk about the folly of limiting your search for truth, while dismissing the work of tens of thousands of biologists because it contradicts a 2000 year old book. I could find better people to teach that message.
ideology with those teachings, how the age of the Bible has any relevance to this I
cannot say, it appears to me to be practically irrelevant. Indeed what is it which makes
those people better? that they have ignored the actual teaching of Jesus and
supplanted it with a purely materialistic ideology which has no basis in scripture, good
luck to you for you'll need it. Better people???, what an ultra maroon!
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knoblets consider the empirical evidence, shall we, no known civilisations beyond 4000/5000
So says the man who thinks humans have only been on the planet 6,000 years and who also believes that the human race was reduced to 8 people around 3,000 years ago. Yet you talk about 'anomalies'?!
the oldest considered to be Sumerian? no known written historical data beyond 4000
years, no known art beyond an estimated ten thousand years, yet we are told that
humans have existed for how long? 100,000/ 80,000 years? why the anomaly, oh thats
right, civilisations didn't exist and therefore there was no need to write things down,
yet the ancient Sumerians did that, but nothing before them for 80,000 years and then
suddenly we need to write things down, not buying it PK!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you trying to kid me as well?
why dont you address the points he was making rather than mocking the post?
RJ has consistently refused to give me any straight answers to my sincere questions for a while now.
Why would I think that he would be any different now if I did address his points in his post?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExplain to me how we have Neanderthal DNA in our genome if you will, how does that revelation meld with your Biblical scheme of things?
lets consider the empirical evidence, shall we, no known civilisations beyond 4000/5000
the oldest considered to be Sumerian? no known written historical data beyond 4000
years, no known art beyond an estimated ten thousand years, yet we are told that
humans have existed for how long? 100,000/ 80,000 years? why the anomaly, oh thats
right, c ...[text shortened]... efore them for 80,000 years and then
suddenly we need to write things down, not buying it PK!
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou might as well ask why there is any human traces of DNA in the human gnome, so called Neanderthals are human not simian and this is about as tenuous as it gets for the materialist, no empiric evidence other than speculative attempts to utilise why a branch of humanity has passed on its genetic make-up, isn't that what the genes supposed to do? Perhaps you might like to detail how extensive your empiric evidence is, are we talking whole skeletal structures or a couple of teeth and a lower jaw bone ?
Explain to me how we have Neanderthal DNA in our genome if you will, how does that revelation meld with your Biblical scheme of things?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, lets consider that. Are you telling us that the Chinese, and the Sumerians, had civilizations before the flood, got wiped out in a global flood, and then Noahs descendants managed to travel back to these locations and found new civilizations with similar cultures and languages as those that were there before?
lets consider the empirical evidence, shall we, no known civilisations beyond 4000/5000
the oldest considered to be Sumerian?
Or are you saying that the flood was prior to these 4000-5000 year old civilizations? Wouldn't that contradict the Bible which mentions civilizations prior to the flood?