dad2

Jesus is God, no? Answer the question. If so, He has a body.

Since it has been observed only for some hundred years or whatever, this has no bearing on the debate as a whole.

If Jesus IS God how could He not have a body, since He resurrected from the dead in a body?

Being God, and having a body was your point?

Is Jesus God? Does Jesus have a resurrected body? Yes He does.

A guess that does not require aliens or some other human race that pre existed creation or whatever. In other words a biblical deduction based on several verses and a known pattern of not usually including women in the begats. The Mother of all living would not be the Eve of the bible if there were other folks sneaking around.

How about daughters before Seth? Do we know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they sinned? I notice in chap 3 verse 19 God tells Eve that He will change how her conception works. That seems to indicate it already may have worked!? Then in verse 20 Adam calls the woman Eve because shew WAS the mother of living! Which living? Not Adam. Then in verse 24, when they were driven from the garden it only mentions 'the man'. We know Eve was there also, so if daughters were also there, they would not get a mentch either. Then we notice that some time was involved in the lives of Cain and Able before the murder. Gen 3:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. Seems to me there was ample opportunity for Adam and Eve and others who may have grown in the process of time also to have some girls. Both before and after the expulsion from the garden. No need to invent some other race of man!

They came from Eve. Reproduction at that time involved family. Of course. And we do not know how many girls Eve also may have had. The bible lists the men usually. Simple.

So Eve was not the mother of all living but just a member of some larger humanity! Ha.

I think the question was why some people disbelieve in a real Eve while claiming to believe in the bible. Can't remember if you stated a position on that. Evasive?

Regardless of your opinion, whatever it may be, many christians claim that Adam was not formed by God's hand and Eve taken from him by God. They say they are related to flatworms, and that evolutiondunit. If you agree with that, I can see why you would fear to defend your position. If you claimed that was 'God creating over great time' I could see why you would avoid defending that. If you agree that God really formed a man from the dust one day, and also performed an operation on him to create Eve from one of his bones, then I would think you should be clear about that.

If one means by believing in creation 100% that one thinks the bible is wrong, and that Adam sort of came up from the ground somehow over great time, or evolved over great time, then whatever you believe in is not the bible.

False. Evolution is a word that comes with baggage. It does not just deal in actual evolving we see today. It deals in claims that life owes itself to the processes of evolution. In christians that claim TOE is correct that means they deny Scripture by twisting it beyond any and all reason and in contradiction to the book as a whole and the Spirit of God.

In no way is that remotely related to a shadow of the truth. Just because adapating and evolving in the modern nature involves reproduction, does not mean it also did in the former nature! You have to prove the same nature also used to exist in the past. Otherwise, your beliefs are not fact or valid. You certainly are in no position to reinvent/disbelieve/overrule God in Genesis! Get used to it.

If post flood man were after the time of the flood, why would this make Noah a Neanderthal? So once again you are engaging in strawmwn and not debating in good faith at all. Once again, there was lots of evolution before the nature change (presumably about the time of the tower of Babel after the flood) and lots after. And, no, we did not all descend from Noah there were four couples on the ark. (additionally, the forces and laws that acted on genetics were likely different, so that whatever DNA Noah may have had cannot be said to be like modern DNA exactly. Since the nature change was after the flood this is another strawman. By the way d you have something against adapting and evolving? You seem to think that any evolving means God got Genesis wrong and that Adam sprung up from the dirt or whatever. No. As mentioned, the processes of adapting and evolving not only also existed in the different past nature, but happened at a very very fast way. That has nothing to do with evolution of man from monkey/ape/chimp/same relatives etc. That does show the utter confusion of the TOE though. It also explains why some people move heaven and earth to try to make God a liar about creation, and conform to what they think science demands. My thoughts on that sort of thing is that I wish that they were hot or cold.

As mentioned that is totally irrelevant since they are post flood and present nature people. Neanderthals are post flood man. I am not sure why you bother debating if you can't pay attention. You were told several times that post flood man is irrelevant since they would have lived in the present nature. If you mention it again there will be no choice but to see it as dishonest. As mentioned more than once already, there was a lot of evolving in the former nature and also some evolving in this present nature. That has zero to do with man being related to flatworms or apes. (and yes we know two bit so called science loves to group man into the ape category, but I am talking about actual apes and monkeys)

Pretty easy to refute you completely. Those are post flood man, so there is no connection to people in the former nature at all. As mentioned already, those post flood man remains are not relevant to the former nature, period. It is not evolution of former nature DNA to modern DNA. Irrelevant. There was lots of evolving in the former nature. Ho hum. In fact it happened so fast that it is hardly comparable to modern slow evolving. Not only fast, but possibly living animals evolved rather than just the offspring. As you should realize by now, you have no usable DNA from before the KT period or even close to that time. So any evolving has zero to do with 'evolution of man'. Yes man undergoes some adapting and evolving, but that has nothing to do with the 'evolution of man' since we are a created kind.

If there was no DNA that was the same, you would have no usuable traces. Funny thing is that is exactly what we see. You have no pre KT DNA that is usable. Either you are ignorant or deceptive. You cannot check on DNA you do not have actually. As for your claim that anything different would mean it had to be due to evolution, that is foolishness. It was not evolution that suddenly cause man to have a lifespan about 1/10 what it was. No it is not. It would be a different nature. In the present nature we do see some evolving, and so yes, genetics are changed, but that has zero to do with Noah's day.

Not like fossils are some big secret. Who doesn't know what the evidence is? The absolute demonstrated fact that science does not know what nature on earth used to exist is not made up. Scripture and ancient history are not made up. The only fairy tales are yours. The idea that somehow things used to be the same won't help you unless you have not just an idea but solid evidence. You do not. You have an opinion you though science agreed with that opposes God's word. No. It would just mean life had some differences from the modern world in the past. Differences like possibly rapid evolving and adapting. Differences like being able to live many centuries. What do you do with that one, wave it away like you do Eve? Even if this were the case, we are talking about some species having changed. Big deal. If there were one tiger kind on the ark, obviously a lot of evolving has went on since then. We now have something like thirty species of tigers. Looking at the timing of when the flood happened, this is evidence that rapid evolution used to be normal! Unless you wave away the flood also? If someone did wave away long lifespans, the flood, and Eve as a real woman and Adam as a created man, I would think they might as well throw their bible away. Who really cares the extent of evolving in the past? God created the kinds and man. All evolving was after the fact. Then there is the issue of how evolving used to happen in the different past. Grabbing some fossils which represent only say, 5% of the spectrum of life that existed in the early record of fossils, and trying to claim they seem similar is fairly inept. Why do they look similar? Did God create similar creatures? Did some much evolved creatures make it into the fossil record, that had some similarity to the kinds which would later also appear in the record? Sorry, but they are using narrow beliefs in viewing the record.

False. He does not know what nature used to exist, and so he cannot interpret the fossils record. Now ask yourself which belief best fits the bible. In all ways, I win.

Not at all. According to Mr wise, was man and animals here in the Cambrian? Mr Wise was just not wise enough yet to realize what the fossil record is all about.

Sorry, but it absolutely does. When we started to be able to leave remains does not show when we lived, only when nature started to allow man and most animals to start leaving remains! Strawman. We are not talking about how the nature we know would only result in a small percentage of life. We are talking about how the nature of the past would not see any remains from man and MOST animals! The name should be changed to 'misunderstanding'! No. Linny also assumed that the fossil record represented a good sample of life and built on that. That is like trying to do a 5000 piece puzzle with only 14 pieces! He wasn't playing with a full deck in other words. There will be similarities in modern DNA (post flood) and also a lot of evolving went on. Hitting it right in a few instances does not mean the general picture was correct. Sure. Let's see what you got. He isn't so wise then!

Would you like to learn why you do not know? Just tell us why you thought you did! Basically you seem to be slyly saying that rather than forming Adam Himself, and then taking Eve from a bone of his, that man came from apes and flatworm relatives. Lie. Beliefs used for dating claim old ages. That is belief foisted on evidence not evidence itself. I know why. I know why they are wrong. You can check your Grandma. Not Noah. Really. Therefore the claim has no bearing on the debate. No. It means you find it objectionable the way He told us He did it! The reasons seem to be that you value the word of man over God.

I agree, it is foolishness to think that just because the nature and laws that affected the atoms and molecules and cells and processes of life in man may have changed, that man himself would not still be similar in body. However we do not now live a thousand years, so the similarities are limited! I would guess that the nature of the past may have allowed evolving for the creature who was still alive rather than exclusively having traits passed down! If so, that would be quite unlike today also. The evidence also shows post flood man underwent many changes in a short time. Neanderthal man and etc. Just because mankind may have seen some changes in height, facial features, life span, diet, climate, brain cage sizes etc, does not mean man is no longer mankind! A ;ot of evolving did happen so that is no problem. To understand what changes happened to what animals, we would need to know what animals actually lived. The fossil record does not tell us that. Man was here, as were birds, bugs, fish, and mammals since the time of creation. We all got here the same few days. In that former different nature though, apparently, it seems that man and most animals returned to dust too fast to be able to leave remains! Therefore we do not expect them in the fossils record, exactly as we observe to be the case. The theory of evolution has assumed that the fossil record was a much more complete record of life on earth. Therefore the evolving that they envision is based on a hopelessly inadequate sampling of life! They have no possibility of forming a proper tree of life! None. Add to that that all evolving started after God created the kinds, so they have no clue at all where evolving started! Add to that the nature change, (post flood) where man and most animals start to enter the fossil record, and they are hopelessly muddled!! Origin science, then, is a religion with no basis in reality.

" For example, flying insects, birds and bats have all evolved the ability to fly, but independently of each other .. DNA accumulates changes over time. Some of these changes can be beneficial, and provide a selective advantage for an organism. .. Our evolutionary history is written into our genome. The human genome looks the way it does because of all the genetic changes that affected our ancestors. " https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution Some of the aspects of the theory are cited above. The theory therefore denies creation of birds and insects as kinds, but attributes flying to evolving. The theory invokes great time in which all of the changes would have taken place on earth. The theory claims genetic similarities are due to ancestry. That denies that man was created. It is not what believers do not understand about anti creation doctrines called evolution that are the problem, it is what we do understand. Yes, the claim that man came from something other than being created by God is crystal clear.