ConScience Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 175 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 EVOLUTION THE BIG FAT It's a good argument. Let me go and ponder a scientific, fact-based response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The Bible tells us, in Genesis, exactly how God created man. He reached down and molded man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him; that man was created in His image. Nowhere does it say he allowed apes to evolve into humans. Good argument, GM. Then problem is that if you take that approach ("the bible doesn't say it, so it can't be true"), then you inevitably have to reject Copernicus' theory. Well, you don't HAVE to, but it would be logically consistent. Actually...................Nope! It was sincere Christian men like Sir Isaac Newton who looked into the pages of Gods Word and came away with scientific theories like Gravity to explain the marvelous workings of Gods Creation. It is only in the last century that supposedly learned men have stopped using science to prove and establish God and instead turned to their pride to use scientific theory to disprove His existence. But then again we knew that this would happen.......................... 2Ti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConScience Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 175 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I suggest that you look back a few centuries to find out exactly why Scientific Theory was established. Where, specifically, would you like me to look for a reason WHY scientific theory was established? Oh, and Dave ... while you're here, could you let me know what happened to my "Healthy Debate" thread - I've been looking for it and can't find it. I know it was closed, but I'd really like to look at it, if I could. If you don't want to put it back up, could I get a dump of it? Thanks!! ConScience. Edited October 26, 2009 by ConScience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The Bible tells us, in Genesis, exactly how God created man. He reached down and molded man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him; that man was created in His image. Nowhere does it say he allowed apes to evolve into humans. Good argument, GM. Then problem is that if you take that approach ("the bible doesn't say it, so it can't be true"), then you inevitably have to reject Copernicus' theory. Well, you don't HAVE to, but it would be logically consistent. Really... how does believing that God created man in His image mean that one has to reject Conpernicus' theory. I would like to see how you make that leap in logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.26 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 I suggest that you look back a few centuries to find out exactly why Scientific Theory was established. Where, specifically, would you like me to look for a reason WHY scientific theory was established? Oh, and Dave ... while you're here, could you let me know what happened to my "Healthy Debate" thread - I've been looking for it and can't find it. I know it was closed, but I'd really like to look at it, if I could. If you don't want to put it back up, could I get a dump of it? Thanks!! ConScience. I just explained why you should look back. Would you like to address why it was that men in previous centuries looked at science through a different lens than you do? If you have any questions or comments about Moderator actions you should contact us through this address; worthyboards@gmail.com Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConScience Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 175 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 Where, specifically, would you like me to look for a reason WHY scientific theory was established? I just explained why you should look back. WHERE, Dave, not WHY. WHERE should I look? Tell me, I'm there! Peace, N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The fact that man created God separate from all other life forms and created man in His image, precludes man evolving from some other life form, much sharing a common ancestor from another life form. The Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The text indicates that man was created directly from the dust. It does not say that created an organism from dust that later evolved into God's image/likeness. The text is unambiguous on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConScience Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 175 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The fact that man created God separate from all other life forms and created man in His image, precludes man evolving from some other life form, much sharing a common ancestor from another life form. The Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The text indicates that man was created directly from the dust. It does not say that created an organism from dust that later evolved into God's image/likeness. The text is unambiguous on that point. So, God created man of of silicates? (dust of the earth ... clay ... both silicates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The fact that man created God separate from all other life forms and created man in His image, precludes man evolving from some other life form, much sharing a common ancestor from another life form. The Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The text indicates that man was created directly from the dust. It does not say that created an organism from dust that later evolved into God's image/likeness. The text is unambiguous on that point. So, God created man of of silicates? (dust of the earth ... clay ... both silicates). Yeah. He's God. He can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConScience Posted October 26, 2009 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 175 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/23/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2009 Now does man come from an ape, probably not. However that doesn't mean that we didn't evolve from something. The bible says that God created man in his own image, it doesn't say how he did it. There could have been a process and from God's point of view, the process didn't matter because man was the finally conclussion of the very thing he was trying to create. The fact that man created God separate from all other life forms and created man in His image, precludes man evolving from some other life form, much sharing a common ancestor from another life form. The Bible says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The text indicates that man was created directly from the dust. It does not say that created an organism from dust that later evolved into God's image/likeness. The text is unambiguous on that point. So, God created man of of silicates? (dust of the earth ... clay ... both silicates). Yeah. He's God. He can do that. So, you are created from silicates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts