dad2

Yep, I consider flatworms lower than mankind. It doesn't much matter what science classifies them as. And TOE does teach that simpler life forms are where you came from. The bible teaches that God created man and woman. I think we all know that. It might be better if you stopped being deceptive. Before the supposed primate thing there was a long list of things TOE say we came from.

It assumes that so called lower life forms are where 'higher' life forms came from. I agree. Since they have no clue anyhow. We can start with the ancestor to flatworms and man if you like. You see it does matter that you claim this is where man came from.

Since I look to God's word, I could never overestimate the knowledge He gives. As for the guy who supposedly thinks evolutiondunit is a highly estimated concept, we must flush. Your opinion that man shares relatives with flatworms cannot be hidden behind Scripture, no matter how intensely you think no one can see.

Well he prefers correctly. He was mistaken about the other. So am I. The only reason one cannot discuss the unknown past nature and creation or the spiritual with scientists is the same reason we cannot discuss it with goldfish. They are fishbowlcentric. False. I am. You are not. The evidence is not the issue. The beliefs of dark science foisted onto evidence is the issue. However he got fooled doesn't matter. The choice does matter. You should be so lucky.

The proof is in the pudding. So far it sounds like a bunch of overrated ignorant and faith based spineless compromising nonsense. They are out of their gourds if they thought that included evidence that man descended from animals. As for the degree to which evolution could happen, that is irrelevant! There is neither the time, nor the starting point from non life that evos preach, and the bible twisting straw grasping 'christian' cheer leaders proclaim. That says squat. Because the 'it' is irrelevant. Even if for example they wanted to call it macroevolution that one tiger pair resulted in some thirty species of tigers we see today, it is totally irrelevant. I've cited them here before, but I'll be pleased to show you yet again... Who gives a hoot about supposed 'traditional creation theory'?? That is a joke. Define it? What flood geology? Ha. The different state past predicts all and any pre flood fossil life we find! It is a record of some few things that lived in the former nature that could leave fossil remains. The DSP predicts that it is impossible to deduce what evolved from what based on this extremely little limited sample of life on earth that is the fossil record. The assumption in using the fossil record is that what we see either today or later in the fossil record had to have evolved from things in the fossil record! No. Not even remotely valid. What there is gobs of evidence is that this poor guy has no clue and doesn't know what he is talking about! If he includes TOE in what he or she means by evolution then he is an embarrassment to the cause. Prating foolishness, echoed by those who are similarly in the dark. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. They were right. This guy is clueless if he includes the evolution of man and life on earth in what he means by using the word 'evolution'. ut who can say from just some snippet you quote? Like anyone would care what some evo preacher with a christian tee shirt declares deluded? Seriously? Ha. .

No scientific evidence that they were pre flood either. So? Adam and Eve and Noah and Seth are not in the record. No man is in the record. Most animals are not in the (early) fossil record either. That means nothing. In other words man underwent some changes after the flood, so what? By the time we see most animals and man start to be able to leave remains, we have entered this nature. They are not in the early record at all. That is origins, if you claim that those skulls represent where modern man came from. By origins we are talking about where man came from, and that includes (in the TOE fable) the supposed ancestor apes you claim. The fact that you think man came from animals is the lie. Be honest. False. The only difference is belief or disbelief. The rest of the bible confirms creation was real. The only reason anyone calls Genesis figurative is because they don't believe it. Yes there are also lessons, symbolism, and figures of the true in all the bible. That does not take away from the reality and truth of the record. Yes, because some chose to not believe it. It is called delusion.

No. It qualifies you for nothing. It means you both taught lies as well as imbibed/studied/memorized them. (since science does not know actual origins)

Or that they are not as far as science goes. However, in the bible we do know man was here all the time. Animals and plants also. Therefore since they are not in the fossil record, what should that tell you?

The bible already tells us how man got here. Clearly. There can be no descent from animals at all. Absolutely against the bible. Adam and Eve were created and the first people on earth. Not just two humans sharing ancestors with flatworms that got some strange dose of spiritual charm. Like Jesus, we have both. He ate food and said, can a spirit eat? No. He proved He was physical also. Both. But that is a diversion. The issue is not whether the physical or spiritual get more points in importance here. The issue is believing that God made a man and woman as the bible says, or rejecting this. So Adam and Eve were just people in your scenario. Lots of people around and those two just got the lottery win so that they got some spirit component also. Not like the poor other members of mankind that had none of that, but I guess were like apes? Ha. That is not anything like what God revealed and told us about how He created. Nor much chance God actually told the truth about it then, in your books. OK. But one thing you do have faith in and certainty...TOE. Got it.

Statement of faith in TOE. Now that was clear. False. I would not call post flood man ape like. If you want to include apes in the list that sort of look somewhat like humans, that is religion. No evidence or support. So you do not realize man evolved a lot and adapted since Noah's day. Nor do you know what is an ape skull from a man's. That is ignorance not evidence. This is for one species. The total of evidence within paleontology only further supports evolution. There are additional fields of science that support the evidence in paleontology. Denial of this evidence only indicates an unwillingness to fully investigate God's creation.

No. They do not have a clue if they suggest that man evolved from common ancestors with flatworms. I kid you not. But since evos like to try to cause division and misrepresent what people say, I would take your claim with a grain of salt. I have said there was lots of evolution that went on before the flood and after in the former nature. I also pointed out it was hyper fast compared to the slow evolving of today. None of this means man evolved from animals, or that all and any evolving did not start with the created creature kinds some 6000 actual years ago. Science time is a joke because they suppose that 4500 years ago or so was about 65 or 70 million years ago. By the time they get near -real time- 6000 years ago they are deep into imaginary billions of years! Such is the dangers of basing time claims on beliefs alone. But since the underlying spirit of TOE is to cause doubt in creation and Genesis, that really is the goal and name of the game for them. So the question arises in bible believers minds, when they see someone fanatically defend and promote TOE while butchering and disbelieving the bible in the process..what spirit are they coming from?

One minute you claim to believe in a real Adam and Eve and the next you are claiming evidence that man came from animals. Pick a side. What is that supposed to mean? You think any YECs believe we share ancestors with flatworms? No. I accept the God given ability and trait of being able to adapt and evolve. That does not mean that man descended from animals. Nor does it mean that the nature we live in today with it's slow processes of evolving is what existed in the past. The word evolution alone is meaningless. Be honest.

So I do know what people have posited that want to be called believers without believing the bible. In your case I still see no real clarity. I see you doubt the deep sleep in Genesis here. You doubt that God took a part of the man to create a woman as the bible says. So what 'Adam and Eve' you believe in I have no idea. Is it a couple that had animals ancestors? Is it a couple that lived in a time when mysterious other people populated the earth also? Is it a couple that took millions of years to evolve? Anyone can mouth the words Adam and Eve. In other words do you absolutely renounce the TOE or not?

The lie of evolution is that is is supported by evidence. Only modern evolving is supported by evidence. Evolution as the big reason for life on earth is a belief set. Nothing more. A belief that opposes Scripture.

I do not think that everyone that mentioned the first man or woman in the whole bible were talking about something that was not a real fact. Name any indication anywhere that creation as told in Genesis is some 'allegory'? No. Since God formed the man like a potter forms clay, and the man had a body that was able to reproduce and bones so that the woman could be made from his body. Adam also walked and talked. Adam had the animals brought to him and named each one. If Adam had descended from them that would be quite a trick! Did Jesus forget to mention that when talking of the first man and woman? Did all the prophets and apostles and even angels that talked of His creation forget to tell us they were kidding? No.

Well, God did an operation on Adam and took something from his side from which He made a woman. Adam said she was bone of his bones. I suspect by the evasion here that you would like to avoid admitting you accept the TOE beliefs, and do not believe that God formed us one day. Obviously the TOE does not involve creation of man and woman one day. You have not renounced that faith, but seem to subtlety support it.

The word bone in Hebrew means this "bone, essence, substance bone body, limbs, members, external body bone (of animal) substance, self " So there doesn't seem to be any confusion. How about sleep, God caused Adam to fall into a sleep, does that mean something else? Etc Don't recall, sorry. I find it slippery when people claim to believe in Eve or Adam, but then demonstrate they don't. Existed as creatures Personally formed and created by God one day? I like to be clear because some folks claim that Adam was a product of evolution, and shared ancestors with flatworms, but, by the time man evolved to be man, they were the only folks existing...sort of thing. In other words they do not believe in Genesis or the created first man and woman. Elementary. If we actually believe Eve was the first woman created, and mother of all living, we already know where any other people came from. Now if we do not really believe in a real Eve, or Adam, then you cannot move past that point, and would continue to explain away the rest of the bible as well. You are confused. No evidence supports that God did not take a bone from a man He had created and made a woman! No evidence supports you at all, and only your beliefs imposed onto evidences seem to support you inside your own head. The evidence itself supports creation every bit as much as your belief. (if you were on of those believing TOE) I still don't really know what you believe. No science supports you if you think Adam was not Personally formed by God one day in the not too distant past though. You only thought it did. I know it does not.

Ok. Answer a few questions so we can see what the your position is. Do you believe Eve was a real woman taken from a bone of a man God created and formed as a real man? Or do you believe you share relatives with flatworms?

No. I am confusing nothing. Evos confuse creation with some process of evolving. They not only speak of the actual evolving we observe, but extend this to make evolution the reason for life on earth. (with or without the supposed help of 'god' does not matter, since God said He created)

No. I am not Mormon. The angel of the Lord is a title of God, many say, in the OT. He has many titles. That does not mean He is a rose or a root or an angel. He appeared as an angel. For example in the fiery furnace, people said there was one like onto the son of God. So do not misrepresent me pretending I claim He is just an angel. Now answer the question. Do you believe Jesus is God Almighty? If He is, then His resurrected BODY is a body.

He is not a captain either some might say. Or a Rose or a Root or a star etc. However His names and titles represent reality. To deny Jesus worked in the OT is a strange position to take? By the way, just for the record, I don't recall you answering the question. Is Jesus God Almighty?

Evolving and adapting since the ark is not in question. What is being looked at here is all the evolution you claim went on before this, such as being related to flatworms and bananas! Be honest. If they do that based on assuming a same nature in the past, and thus that the fossil record represents a broad spectrum of life on earth, then they are not playing with a full deck either. You cannot determine from genetics or the fossil record what evolved from what in early earth history since it represents only a rather insignificant bit of life for the time. You are doing a 5000 piece puzzle with only 21 pieces and so the picture that results is absolutely faith based. It also opposes the word of God.

If there was a lynx on the ark and it adapted and evolved we would have what? Different types of lynx. That is expected. Nothing to do with man being related to worms.

Christians would tend to take the resurrection more seriously.

Right, before He had a body He did not, although the angel of the Lord in the OT appeared in a body. Wrestling with Jakob..etc. As you may know the angel of the Lord is another name for Jesus in the OT many people believe.