Jump to content
IGNORED

The Human Body Could not have Evolved


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts

I see the reaction of Christians everywhere....
when we see extremists....
being violent....
 
My reaction to this....
based on the principle you're putting forward....
is that these actions aren't....
necessarily bad....
after all....

 

~

 

Beloved, Not All Christians Believe In Godless Evolution

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

 

Nor Do They Ever Doubt Evil Will Go

 

Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man. Psalms 71:4

 

Unpunished

 

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27

 

You See?

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19

 

~

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Bonky, you said, “I think earlier you were stating that people don't even give young earth arguments any consideration, I was trying to offer one reason why that might be”

 

I’m sure there are many reasons people reject creationism a-priori. Poor creationist arguments may contribute to people’s incapacity to be objective (which is probably why CMI has a page of discouraged arguments). I think the far greater reason is that the secular world is so heavily and exclusively exposed to only one side of the argument. I may have mentioned before that I didn’t even know creationism existed before I converted to Christianity as a young adult. Those that have heard of creationism usually do so through the lens of an antagonist (i.e. ‘those irrational, religious crazies’). This creates a false impression that there is only one position worth listening to; only one valid side to the debate.

 

 

 

“I am however stating that for some secular folks, Ray Comfort is their initial exposure to the creationist model”

 

So would it be correct to say that all of Ray’s arguments are poor – or are the silliest ones being highlighted by anti-creationists to show how ridiculous all creationists are? Even if all of his arguments are poor, is it fair-minded to attribute that to all creationists?

 

 

 

“Not long ago Ray stated on his facebook page that gravity didn't exist in space.”

 

Did he? And?

 

Without any context, I am unable to assess this (I don’t have facebook), and I’m not sure why you would want me to assess this. I speak for myself, not Ray.

 

 

 

“I think it's a bit beyond interpretations being influenced”

 

Which means exactly nothing – chalk another one up to Innuendo.

 

 

 

    So you argument is that – since “Kurt Wise” said it, it must be the standard position of all creationists? Yet I have already discussed with you my disagreement with blind faith. So what does Kurt’s statement have to do with our discussion?

“It's a pattern or a theme that I've seen, I just find it shocking to hold this position.”

 

- Duly noted. What I’m struggling to understand is why you see the need to muddy the waters of our conversation by introducing irrelevant information about what other creationists have said. Anyone with a long standing public profile will have records of dumb things they have said at one point. I recall Richards Dawkins recently got berated by the world for something dumb he tweeted. Does that mean I should disregard the arguments of all atheists, or evolutionists, or even anything else he has to say on any topic?

 

 

 

“The piltdown fraud happened in the early 1900s you realize that right? You claim they didn't apply skepticism and scrutiny to the situation but they absolutely did. There was doubt from the very beginning, it wasn't until later that they could prove that it was a fraud”

 

The Piltdown man is a human head stuck to an orang-utan jaw - first presented in 1912. Are you telling me that taxonomists in 1912 had no way of distinguishing human from orang-utan jaws? The teeth on the jaw had been filed – as attested to by the obvious file markings. The jaw had been stained and chemically treated – and in some places painted. How hard could they have looked; given that it remained a fraud until 1953? If there was doubt early on, it wasn’t sufficient to warrant a close enough look.

 

 

 

“Who is "they" when you say they resort to fraud? Are you talking about scientists or con men?”

 

When I say “they”, I mean people who are so zealous for their position that “they” are prepared to perpetrate fraud in its name. “They” can be at once “scientists” and “con-men”. All of the suspects for Piltdown man are scientists. Other examples include; Achaeoraptor, Haeckel’s drawings, peppered moths etc. – all frauds perpetrated by scientists.

 

 

 

“It was scientists that exposed the fraud for what it was”

 

Scientists” who drank the cool aid for 40 years before someone (Kenneth Oakley) finally took a critical look at the facts. The fraud here is less relevant than the fact that such an amateurish fraud took so long to be exposed.

 

 

 

    Good story. Whatever you do, don’t start a threat asking creationists for facts that can be interpreted to support the Biblical flood. Just stick with your own opinion and assume you are right.

“I know I've heard some of them already, no thread needed.”

 

If you are settled on your opinion, why even mention it? Since you have apparently heard (and clearly given objective consideration) to everything there is to hear.

 

 

 

“Again I see no point in starting a thread to hear what I've already heard. We covered some ground on this already and didn't get very far. You stated that mobile animals were able to make their way to higher ground. I replied that what about after they died, rushing to the top of a hill only works when you're alive, if you're dead you're getting mixed up with all the other corpses”

 

So firstly, you have oversimplified my position (which is quite a feat since I only provided a concise position to begin with). Then you have repeated the strategy of assuming that since we have discussed it briefly, that must be all there is to it.

 

A proper discussion on fossil succession requires its own thread because there is so much to deal with – such as examining your assumption that all “corpses” would be “mixed up” in a global flood. This assumption also implies that the flood would be represented by a single sediment layer. So we would have to examine assumptions regarding sediment and fossil sorting. There are varying flood models to consider. We would have to look at whether the Pollyanna fossil succession pattern found in secular textbooks actually exists anywhere on earth. We’d have to examine the use and reliability of index fossils and range expansions and gaps in the record. There’d have to consideration of sediment stratification, polystrate fossils, living fossils, signs-of-life fossils, and the specific conditions required for fossilisation, and their implications. We’d probably end up having to revisit radiometric dating etc.

 

But before we get to that, we have to decide whether or not the logical methodology discussed in this thread is acceptable (rational); given that the flood is an historical claim that can never be observed. Because I would NOT be interested in a conversation where only you had the right to employ this logic – but when I use the same logic, you simply dismiss my position without argument.

 

 

 

“Your use of the word faith is not found in the dictionary, please make up your own word instead of taking words and tweaking the definitions”

 

My definition of faith is both rationally justified and consistent with dictionary synonyms such as ‘confidence, trust, belief, conviction etc.’ If you want it defined another way, provide an argument.

 

In specific contexts, faith can mean the particular belief system being discussed; e.g. ‘the Christian faith’ – but that is not how I have been using it.

 

Confidence based in observation is called knowledge. Confidence apart from observation is called faith (or trust or belief etc.). What words would you prefer?

 

 

 

“Having said that indirect observations have also led to discoveries, so they can prove useful as well”

 

The “discoveries” are the observations. All you can claim to have discovered is what you have observed.

 

Yes, some observations (which are indirect to the claim of interest) can lead to further investigation, and the ultimate discovery/observation of the claim. But "discoveries" have to be there to be discovered. Historical claims (and supernatural claims) will never be discovered by science.

 

 

 

“I could be losing my memory/mind, but I don't remember bringing up the big bang [at least not originally, I thought that was you]”

 

I originally mentioned secular models to demonstrate that the same logic is applied to support all unobserved/unobservable claims; both secular and Biblical. You then introduced Black Holes to show that you can ‘believe in’ something that hasn’t been directly observed because of ancillary (or indirect) “evidence”. And I made two points;

 

1) Any confidence in a claim that hasn’t been observed requires faith/belief (or whatever word you prefer to describe trust that is not based in observation) – in order to fill the logical gap between actual observations and the unobserved claim.

 

2) Black Holes are a false analogy in the sense that their putative status as a current, natural phenomena means that they can be theoretically observed. Whereas historical claims such as Big Bang can never be observed – and therefore confidence in such claims will always incorporate faith/belief (or whatever word you prefer to describe trust that is not based in observation).

 

To these points I would add a third – that in the context of this discussion, I am actually defending the logical methodology as rational.

 

 

 

“I couldn't find this quote or video from Neil, I was curious to hear what he had to say”

 

It was in a lecture called “In Defense of Big Bang”. I saw the original on youtube (probably a year or more ago) but I couldn’t track down the link just now. There was a green background with a window (and I think a picture of earth hanging behind him).

 

 

 

“So it was God's choice to require his son to be sacrificed. It was God's choice to decide that humans go to hell to be tormented forever [i have met Christians that didn't believe in hell] if they die and don't believe. Doesn't sound all loving to me”

 

This is a separate theological/philosophical issue to the topic of our discussion. To answer this we would have to delve into God’s available “choices”, the context of God’s nature being “all loving” and perfectly just, the implications of other available choices, and the relevance of your finite opinion given that you obviously have come to a simplistic conclusion without having considered these issues.

 

 

 

“I see the reaction of Christians everywhere when we see extremists being violent”

 

Yes – that is because Christianity teaches Christians to love our enemies, and that God holds human value so highly that He permitted the sacrifice of his perfect Son to redeem us from the eternal consequences of sin. We don’t see something as “bad”, simply because we don’t like it. We have a particular faith context to justify our moral conclusion.

 

 

 

“My reaction to this, based on the principle you're putting forward, is that these actions aren't necessarily bad after all”

 

That is correct. In the absence of any context or opposing argument, we cannot rationally, arbitrarily dismiss the possibility that Allah is god, and that he has commanded his followers to behead Christians.

 

 

 

“You yourself said we don't have access to all information so who's to challenge God?”

 

It somewhat depends what you mean by “challenge”. The Bible encourages Christians to ask questions about things we don’t understand, but to disrespectfully presume that we know better than God is inherently imbecilic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

I think part of this thread got deleted somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  642
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   405
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/08/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Joe said in post 161:

 

Beloved, Not All Christians Believe In Godless Evolution

 

By Godless Evolution, do you mean as opposed to Theistic Evolution?

 

If so, regarding the latter, note that an old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with miraculous creation, just as an automated process created by a human (e.g. a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that human sometimes performing a task himself directly (painting some pictures by hand). I.e., evolution per se can simply be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God sometimes creating species miraculously.

 

Some people ask why would God wait millions of years for something to evolve from a one-celled organism, when he could just instantly create it? He could do that for the same reason that he has a human start out as a one-celled organism: a zygote in its mother's womb. He then has it only gradually develop through natural means into an embryo, and then into a fetus, and then a baby, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult. And he has other animals develop gradually in a similar way. And he has plants start out as seeds. So it must give God pleasure to see organisms develop naturally over time, just as it must give him pleasure to also sometimes create plants and animals miraculously, instantaneously, already fully-formed, like he did in Genesis 1:11-13 and Genesis 1:20-27, during 3 of the 7 literal, 24-hour days of Genesis 1:3 to 2:4.

 

Creationism can include what could be called a double-gap theory, meaning that there could have been 2 gaps of time in Genesis chapters 1-2, the first gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and the 2nd gap between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. Genesis 1:1 could have occurred some 4.5 billion years ago, when God first created the planet earth and its atmosphere (the 1st heaven, in which the birds fly: Genesis 1:20b). Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, some 4.5 billion years could have occurred, in which God could have allowed his own created process of evolution to serve as a mechanism by which new species arose naturally on the earth. During those same 4.5 billion years, God could have also gone outside of evolution and created new species miraculously, whenever he wanted to (cf. punctuated equilibria).

 

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about 12,000 years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm, such as a comet strike, had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so that the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate that rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of 6 literal, 24-hour days (some 12,000 years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land, and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens, after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth.

 

Then, only about 6,000 years ago, God miraculously created on the earth an individual male homo sapiens sapiens named Adam in an uninhabited desert land (Genesis 2:5-7; there, the original Hebrew word translated as "earth" can simply refer to a certain "land": e.g. Genesis 2:11). After that, God planted the plants of the local, Garden of Eden in that desert land (Genesis 2:8-9), and God placed Adam in that garden (Genesis 2:15). Then God miraculously created the animals of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:19). Then he created an individual female homo sapiens sapiens (Genesis 2:22) whom Adam named Eve (Genesis 3:20).

 

Because Adam was created only about 6,000 years ago (based on Biblical chronology), yet there are homo sapiens sapiens fossils said to be as old as about 200,000 years, God could have first created homo sapiens sapiens (or it could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) as far back as about 200,000 years. Also, all the different hominid forms the fossils of which long predate or are as old as the earliest fossils of homo sapiens sapiens, and which preceding or coexisting hominid forms we don't consider to have been fully human like us (such as homo sapiens neanderthalensis), could have all been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) over millions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth.

 

And this doesn't even get into the possibly trillion other inhabited planets in the universe on which homo sapiens sapiens (or similar or far more advanced life-forms) could have been created by God (or could have evolved by God's created process of evolution) billions of years prior to the first appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the earth. For the universe could be about 14 billion years old, and it contains something like 100 billion galaxies, each containing something like 100 billion stars. So even if only one star out of every 10 billion stars has an inhabited planet, there would still be a trillion inhabited planets. And on most of these, God could have begun his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) billions of years prior to his beginning of his miraculous work (and the work of his created process of evolution) on the earth.

 

--

 

It is sometimes claimed the Bible requires the earth is only 6,000 years old. But, actually, all it requires is that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago. For various scriptures make it possible to estimate the year BC that Adam (as opposed to the earth) was created, by working back from the year BC that Solomon's temple began to be built. Historians say that it began to be built about 966 BC. And the scriptures show that it began to be built 480 years after Israel's Exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). And Israel had spent 430 years in Egypt before the Exodus (Exodus 12:40-41). And Israel entered Egypt when Jacob was 130 (Genesis 47:9). And Jacob was born when his father Isaac was 60 (Genesis 25:26). And Isaac was born when his father Abraham was 100 (Genesis 21:5). And Abraham was born when his father Terah was about 70 (Genesis 11:26). And Terah was born when his father Nahor was 29 (Genesis 11:24). And Nahor was born when his father Serug was 30 (Genesis 11:22). And Serug was born when his father Reu was 32 (Genesis 11:20). And Reu was born when his father Peleg was 30 (Genesis 11:18).

 

And Peleg was born when his father Eber was 34 (Genesis 11:16). And Eber was born when his father Salah was 30 (Genesis 11:14). And Salah was born when his father Arphaxad was 35 (Genesis 11:12). And Arphaxad was born when his father Shem was 100 (Genesis 11:10). And Shem was born when his father Noah was 502 (Genesis 11:10 and Genesis 7:6). And Noah was born when his father Lamech was 182 (Genesis 5:28-29). And Lamech was born when his father Methuselah was 187 (Genesis 5:25). And Methuselah was born when his father Enoch was 65 (Genesis 5:21). And Enoch was born when his father Jared was 162 (Genesis 5:18). And Jared was born when his father Mahalaleel was 65 (Genesis 5:15). And Mahalaleel was born when his father Cainan was 70 (Genesis 5:12). And Cainan was born when his father Enos was 90 (Genesis 5:9). And Enos was born when his father Seth was 105 (Genesis 5:6). And Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 (Genesis 5:3).

 

Adding up the numbers of years above, we see that Adam was created about 4114 BC. This lines up with the fact that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC. If Adam was created about 4114 BC, this means that 6,000 years since Adam's creation were completed back at the end of about 1886 AD, and that the 7th millennium began about 1887 AD. (But this doesn't mean that the millennium of Revelation 20:4-6 has started yet.) Also, it is curious that the next year (1888 AD) Blavatsky published her book (The Secret Doctrine) referring to the "New Age". Also, it is curious that the Mayan calendar begins in 3114 BC, exactly 1,000 years after 4114 BC. Also, the numbers of years in the scriptures referenced above show that Abraham (who was first promised the land of Israel by God: Exodus 32:13) was born about 1,948 years after Adam's creation, just as the modern state of Israel was established in 1948 AD.

 

-

 

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC (subsequent to Adam's creation about 4114 BC), by "civilization" is meant "the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained" (Webster's, a print-version). "The 4th millennium BC saw major changes in human culture. It marked the beginning of the Bronze Age and the invention of writing, which played a major role in starting recorded history. The city states of Sumer and the kingdom of Egypt were established and grew to prominence" (Wikipedia -- 4th millennium BC).

 

Regarding "civilization" being defined by Oxford Dictionaries as the "most advanced" stage of human social development and organization, our current human civilization (4th millennium BC to the present) is the most advanced stage of human social development and organization, compared to all known prehistoric (pre-4th millennium BC) stages.

 

-

 

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC, by "current" is meant that civilization which began in the 4th millennium BC and continues on today, as opposed to any pre-Adamic human civilizations which may have existed from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

If there were pre-Adamic civilizations, they could have reached as high a level of technology as our modern technology today. For the Bible says that "there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things" (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11). And even our future technology could have already been invented during past eons, for "that which is to be hath already been" (Ecclesiastes 3:15).

 

But all past-eons technology on the earth could have been obliterated by God, leaving no trace of it, just as all of our own technology today (and in our future) will eventually be obliterated by God, when "the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10b). Here "earth" could mean just the surface of the earth, for the planet itself could continue on forever (Ecclesiastes 1:4, Psalms 104:5, Psalms 78:69b), so that the future "new earth" (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) could mean a new surface of the earth.

 

-

 

Regarding the claim above that our current human civilization began about 4000 BC, by "human" is meant human civilization in general, as opposed to the civilization of any particular people (e.g. Aztec civilization).

 

Also, by "human" civilization is meant civilization started by humans as opposed to any non-human animals. For preceding the first human civilization, there could have been non-human, mammalian civilizations some 65 to 2 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent horse-like creatures (cf. the strange horse-like creatures in Revelation 9:17-19). These could have rebelled against God and then been banished from this planet, and forced to live, perhaps, in underground bases on the far side of this planet's moon or on the next planet out from the sun. For the future army of 200 million weird horse-like creatures in Revelation 9:16-19 will have to come from somewhere.

 

Preceding the first mammalian civilization, there could have been reptilian civilizations some 250 to 65 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent dinosaur/dragon creatures (cf. Satan being a dragon in Revelation 12:9).

 

And preceding the first reptilian civilization, there could have been amphibian civilizations some 350 to 250 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent frog-like creatures, who could have rebelled against God and become unclean spirits (cf. the frog-like creatures/unclean spirits in Revelation 16:13-14).

 

And preceding the first amphibian civilization, there could have been insect civilizations some 450 to 350 million years ago, started by, for example, intelligent locust-like creatures (cf. the strange locust-like creatures in Revelation 9:3-10), who could have rebelled against God and been banished to a cavern deep underground (cf. the sealed pit in Revelation 9:1b-3,11).

 

-

 

Someone might ask: "But don't only humans have the hands required to build things and civilizations?"

 

The various strange creatures mentioned above could have human-like hands. For they aren't the same as the horses, locusts, frogs, etc. which we can see today. And the Bible shows that non-human creatures can have human-like hands (Ezekiel 1:5-14).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  208
  • Topic Count:  60
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,651
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   5,761
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  01/31/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/04/1943

Someone might ask: "But don't only humans have the hands required to build things and civilizations?"

 

The various strange creatures mentioned above could have human-like hands. For they aren't the same as the horses, locusts, frogs, etc. which we can see today. And the Bible shows that non-human creatures can have human-like hands (Ezekiel 1:5-14).

 

:thumbsup:

 

Beloved~!

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:1-3 (NASB)

 

Someone Might Ask

 

Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Isaiah 40:26 (NIV)

 

Does Jesus The Creator Really Have Hands?

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 (KJV)

 

And Why Did Our Creator?

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. Genesis 2:1-3 (ESV)

 

Celebrate His Sabbath?

 

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy: You are to labor six days and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work — you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy. Exodus 20:8-11 (HCSB)

 

Someone Might Ask....

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 (KJV)

 

~

 

Believe

 

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. Psalms 119:160 (NIV)

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. Psalms 119:11 (NIV)

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  249
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   8
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/07/2007
  • Status:  Offline

My two cents on the topic (probably not worth even that)

 

Could the human body have evolved? Yes i think it's very plausible that it could have.

Could the human body have been created by God? Yes i think it's possible. We live on a rock that revolves around a sun in a vast universe. If that's possible then anything is.

Could the human body have evolved by Gods creation? If god exists it's obvious he's all powerful so evolving the human body through evolution would be a walk in the park.

 

Do i know for certain which of these is true. No i don't and i don't mind admitting i don't. We weren't here 6000 or 13.9 billion years ago so we can never say for certain. We can postulate and come up with theories and try to justify them. Maybe in future we can know for certain. I fear the only way to know for sure is to die. If nothing happens then we evolved but as theres no heaven or hell then we'll never know about it. If we do awaken after death then i think it's pretty obvious that God exists. And that would be pretty awesome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  58
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  5,457
  • Content Per Day:  1.71
  • Reputation:   4,220
  • Days Won:  37
  • Joined:  07/01/2015
  • Status:  Offline

I was reading through this thread and thought about a documentary I saw a while back called Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.    For anyone who has any interest in this debate, you may find this very interesting:

Edited by Hippie333
please post videos in video forum
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  208
  • Topic Count:  60
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,651
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   5,761
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  01/31/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/04/1943

Joe said in post 161:

 

~

 

Beloved, Not All Christians Believe In Godless Evolution

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

 

Nor Do They Ever Doubt Evil Will Go

 

Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man. Psalms 71:4

 

Unpunished

 

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27

 

You See?

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19

 

~

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

 

 

By Godless Evolution, do you mean as opposed to Theistic Evolution?

 

If so, regarding the latter, note that an old earth and evolution can be true without contradicting creationism, because evolution per se (random mutation and survival of the fittest) can coexist with miraculous creation, just as an automated process created by a human (e.g. a computer program which makes random, colorful pictures which can be seen as art) can coexist with that human sometimes performing a task himself directly (painting some pictures by hand). I.e., evolution per se can simply be a process created by God to allow new, adaptive species to arise naturally over time, and this process can coexist with God sometimes creating species miraculously....

 

......

Genesis 1:2 could refer to the condition of the earth only about 12,000 years ago (at the end of the Paleolithic period), after some cataclysm, such as a comet strike, had killed off all life on the planet (both evolved and miraculously created), and had submerged all land areas in water (comets contain huge amounts of water), and had ruined the atmosphere. The impact of the comet could have also knocked the earth out of its orbit around its original star, so that the earth was sent hurtling into the darkness of interstellar space as a "rogue planet" (astronomers estimate that rogue planets in our galaxy could outnumber the stars in our galaxy). Genesis 1:3 to 2:4 could then refer to God, over a period of 6 literal, 24-hour days (some 12,000 years ago, at the start of the Neolithic period), miraculously restoring to the earth light, a good atmosphere, dry land, and life, including a race of male and female homo sapiens sapiens, after God had miraculously restored land plants (Genesis 1:11-13) and land animals (Genesis 1:24-25) to the earth....

 

?

 

What's In A Day

 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

 

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19 (NIV)

 

And Why Believe

 

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6 (NIV)

 

In The LORD Of Miracles

 

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 1 Corinthians 15:21-26 (NIV)

 

When One Can Follow The lord Of The Gaps

 

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8 (ESV)

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

 

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

 

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:9-14 (NIV)

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

My two cents on the topic (probably not worth even that)

 

 

Oh yes it is and it's worth as much as anyone's "2 cents". 

 

 

Could the human body have evolved? Yes i think it's very plausible that it could have.

 

 

Well you have to have the human body First ....so as to evolve.  And being "evolution" is....

 

From two of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution "theory"...

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

 

What you got here is a Massive Begging The Question (Fallacy).  In Fact, the whole foundation of "evolution" is built upon Logical Fallacies.

 

 

 

Could the human body have been created by God? Yes i think it's possible.

 

 

If fact, it's the only choice.

 

1.  Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

Then the Wholly Mammoth in the Room....."INFORMATION":  The Genetic CODE:

 

INFORMATION is the "sine qua non" of Life.  Ya see....

 

Information---the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

 

It's CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.

Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

 

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.

So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

 

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

 

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

 

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......

 

CAT_zpsfcoma0g6.jpg

The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name "WE" (Intelligent Agents) gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's semiotic.

 

Paul Revere...what's the "CODE" ? One Light or Two Lights, right? What's the Software? It was the Agreed upon Convention between Paul and The Patriots. Who Created the Software/Message (The "1 if by Land and 2 if by Sea")....the Lights?

You're looking @ a "CODE" right now....it's called the English Language. The Software (Meaning) is the Preemptive Agreed upon Convention so we can Understand the Message, it's Semiotic. Without "Meaning" there is No Information/"CODE" it's utter noise.

 

CODE/Information/Software is always...ever ever ever, sourced by INTELLIGENT AGENCY, Without Exception!

 

 

 

If god exists it's obvious he's all powerful so evolving the human body through evolution would be a walk in the park.

 

 

It's not so much as what HE "could do"....it's more of what "HE said HE did'.

 

 

 

Do i know for certain which of these is true. No i don't and i don't mind admitting i don't.

 

 

With just what I posted above, "you know" with 100% Certitude   dblthumb2.gif

 

 

 

I fear the only way to know for sure is to die.

 

 

According to the WORD of GOD......then, it's too late.

 

 

 

Truly hope this Blesses you. If you have anymore questions or need clarification, Please don't hesitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...