Theistic Evolution's Incompatibility with Scripture

[nChrist]

I personally find another thread on evolution to be offensive. You just left two other evolution threads without any attempt to answer questions posed to you. Why, you can't answer them. Bluntly, the theory of evolution and the Holy Bible contradict each other - they both can't be true. Your total obsession with the theory of evolution indicates that's more important to you than God's Word. Are you trying to fill the entire forum with your evolution garbage? How many threads will be sufficient for you? All you are accomplishing is creating more doubt in yourself and serving as a very poor testimony before men. Why don't you go back to the other two threads and answer the questions posed to you? This thread won't be any different than the other two.

Cite the Scriptures from the Holy Bible that support your outrageous claim that God used evolution to create man from MONKEYS.

At what point in MONKEYDOM did the monkey gain a resemblance to God? Did the "image of God" evolve along with the MONKEY?

Why is "after his kind" mentioned so many times in Genesis 1?

Why does God's Word bluntly declare that man was created on a different day than any other living creatures?

Explain these very simple and blunt portions of Scripture:

Genesis 1:26-27 KJV 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 air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The above says nothing about God breathing into a monkey to make man. In fact, man's first breath was given to him by God Himself - the breath of life from God.

Why was man given the dominion over all other living things, including monkeys?

Let me repeat one more thing: you're increasing the doubts that other Christians have in you.

I have tried my best to keep up with all the threads, as well as threads on other topics in this forum. Although I think I am ready for a break from discussing evolution for a while. The same things are being hashed and rehashed on it. And nothing new is being presented on either side. And my purpose in discussing evolutionary creationism in the first place wasn't to convince people that its true but rather convince them that its compatible with Christian faith. Everyone seems to want to devolve the topic into discussing the position itself. Thats fine, but that just wasn't my purpose. So I think I will say good-bye to this forum (Apologetics/Faith vs. Science) for a while and focus on more constructive threads than one that causes more division than its worth.

See you all in the other threads of Worthy Christians!

This is a copy and paste from another thread, so I'll also copy and paste - below:

You didn't provide any information on that issue, so I guess that you failed. You didn't answer questions posed to you, nor did you post any Scripture that you use to support your claim. "I think" is your entire stance in all of the threads you have participated in. You dismiss and disagree with God's Word in favor of a theory by men. You haven't given much of a clue about your logic in arriving at your stance. The only positive portion of these threads is the airing of the True Creation Account, the one in Genesis. You didn't connect any of your dots because you didn't supply any dots.

[Guest shiloh357]

I do think that this is a problem for anyone who views Adam and Eve as the sole starters of the human race; not only is it bad for genetic diseases (as readily shown by many royal families in the past that only marry relatives to keep the bloodline pure), but for bacterial/viral infections and diseases as well along with coping with changes in the environment.

The simple solution is that it was not a problem at the beginning. Genetic problems with inter-family relations developed over time.

The problem with thinking that Adam and Eve are not the sole source for the human race is that sin is only attributed in the Bible to Adam. Sin came through Adam and is inherited by his descendents. If there were other humans at the time of Adam or prior to Adam that are responsible for the human race, you would have a sinless lineage of humans and a sinful one. Who belongs to the sinless one?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I do think that this is a problem for anyone who views Adam and Eve as the sole starters of the human race; not only is it bad for genetic diseases (as readily shown by many royal families in the past that only marry relatives to keep the bloodline pure), but for bacterial/viral infections and diseases as well along with coping with changes in the environment.

The simple solution is that it was not a problem at the beginning. Genetic problems with inter-family relations developed over time.

The problem with thinking that Adam and Eve are not the sole source for the human race is that sin is only attributed in the Bible to Adam. Sin came through Adam and is inherited by his descendents. If there were other humans at the time of Adam or prior to Adam that are responsible for the human race, you would have a sinless lineage of humans and a sinful one. Who belongs to the sinless one?

Exactly.

D-9, you already know that royal family comparisons are moot, because you already know that the problem with incest is that it copies pre-existing genetic errors, instead of overwriting them with non-mutated, sound sequencing. Such would not exist before mutations corroded the genome.

In addition, if the genome was created optimally the immune systems would have been ideal and who knows how fast diseases would have mutated back during the Genesis account.

Your objections are contingent on imposing current conditions on a scenario that specifies completely different conditions.

But back to the question, even if 50 isn't a universal number, at the point of sexual reproduction it would have to be more than 1. You'd need at least 2 just in order to reproduce, which is a problem, and how many more to sustain? My point isn't married to the number 50 - I didn't mention a fixed number.

[Don Fanucci]

The simple solution is that it was not a problem at the beginning. Genetic problems with inter-family relations developed over time.

Am I missing something, or is the correct answer the most obvious? Since there were only two living humans, by definition, they are disease-free.