God used Evolution to 'create' man

[101G]

Addressing the OP only. a few things come to mind about Evolution and Man. NOTHING,

Point #1. for if man evolved then you're saying that God evolved. for man was made in God image.  and God did not evolved. which bring me to,

Point #2. man was made before all the animals was brought forth. for man was made on DAY 3. you gave the correct scripture, 

Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Genesis 2:6 "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Genesis 2:7 "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."

ok, what day was the plants, grass, and herbs came upon the EARTH? day 3, see Genesis 1:9-13. so man was "formed" before these things came upon the earth. and notice man was here befor any sea animals, so no, man did not come from the sea either. and man was here before any land animals, so we don't have any monkeys as an uncle, nor any anuties in any trees. 

On 8/22/2019 at 6:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?

the first man God made was a "DEAD" man, hence the breath of life to enter.

 

On 8/22/2019 at 6:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

 that's easy, Adam and Eve had children in the Garden before they had Cain and Able ourside the Garden. supportive scriptures,  Genesis 3:16, and Genesis 3:20. knowing this, ihat Adam and Eve had children before the fall answers where Cain got his wife, and it also answer who the Sons of God are in Genesis chapter 6. 

PICJAG.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by 101G

[omega2xx]

20 hours ago, 101G said:

Addressing the OP only. a few things come to mind about Evolution and Man. NOTHING,

Point #1. for if man evolved then you're saying that God evolved. for man was made in God image.  and God did not evolved. which bring me to,

Point #2. man was made before all the animals was brought forth. for man was made on DAY 3. you gave the correct scripture, 

Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Genesis 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Genesis 2:6 "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Genesis 2:7 "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."

ok, what day was the plants, grass, and herbs came upon the EARTH? day 3, see Genesis 1:9-13. so man was "formed" before these things came upon the earth. and notice man was here befor any sea animals, so no, man did not come from the sea either. and man was here before any land animals, so we don't have any monkeys as an uncle, nor any anuties in any trees. 

the first man God made was a "DEAD" man, hence the breath of life to enter.

 

 that's easy, Adam and Eve had children in the Garden before they had Cain and Able ourside the Garden. supportive scriptures,  Genesis 3:16, and Genesis 3:20. knowing this, ihat Adam and Eve had children before the fall answers where Cain got his wife, and it also answer who the Sons of God are in Genesis chapter 6. 

You are right that Cain and Able came after the garden, but there is no indication that Adam and Ever had children before Cain and Able. 

Quote

PICJAG.

 

Point #1. for if man evolved then you're saying that God evolved. for man was made in God image.

 

"Create" and the word mean out of nothing,  eliminates the idea of evolving.  To evolve it is necessary to have something from which to evolve.

Point #2. man was made before all the animals was brought forth. for man was made on DAY 3. you gave the correct scripture, 

 

Not true.  "Let us make", not create is in the future tense, not the present tense.    Also notice that in Gen 1:27 "likeness" is omitted.  "Image" refers to man's invisible attributes, intellect, love, compassion, etc.

Genesis 2:7 "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."

This was after the Garden of Eden had been made so God would have a place for man to live in. Gen 2:7).

the first man God made was a "DEAD" man, hence the breath of life to enter.

Adam was born spiritually dead, not physically dead.  So in a sense thag is right.  However it  is necessary to  have the indwelling Spirit to  have real life(2 Cor 3:6).

You are right that Cain and Able came after the garden, but there is no indication that Adam and Ever had children before Cain and Able. 

Peace and joy

Edited November 1, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can't address all of Morris's points without spending a lot of time, but what would your response be if I showed you evidence for the formation of new species?

I don;'t know if dhChristian would  be interested, but I would.   

Peach and joy

[omega2xx]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:24 PM, Fran C said:

I also hear from scientists that Darwin's theory is being abandoned by some because there are questions that cannot be answered with this theory.

What I find interesting about your post is that you disagree with a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-3.  I'd have to agree with this since God can INSPIRE something to be written,,,but only at the level of man's understanding at the time.

Then you say that Genesis 1-3 does not fit what is evident in God's creation.

Like what, for instance?

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did.  Until the 60's it was believed that the universe always existed...it is only after the 1960's that scientists accepted that the universe had a beginning...the Big Bang.

Also, the bible states that  the earth was prepared for man.  It certainly does seem that it was fine-tuned to accomodate humanity.

What does NOT seem to fit, in your estimation?

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did. 

 

Where?

The main problem about the BB is that they never explain the source of the matter that went bang, they never explain the source of the energy needed to make it go bang and they never explain how life began from dead elements. 

Peace and joy

Edited November 1, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

On 10/30/2019 at 11:21 PM, one.opinion said:

I have also experienced the Lord and His great love. My opinion of the flood is not anything that is a barrier to that.

Of course it is possible that God did flood the entire earth. But the language of the Bible isn’t clear on this point. Since the evidence in the fossil record, geology, and current biogeography suggest the flood was not global, it seems a reasonable interpretation.

Of course it is possible that God did flood the entire earth. But the language of the Bible isn’t clear on this point. Since the evidence in the fossil record, geology, and current biogeography suggest the flood was not global, it seems a reasonable interpretation.

 

The Bible  is very clear on this point.   Gen 7:20;  Surely if the highest  mo0untains were covered  By 23 feet, all of he land lower than that would be Covered.

Since the fossils of sea life has been found on mountain tops, some geology certainly suggest there was a global flood.

What current biography  suggest there was no global flood?

 

Peace and joy

 

 

[omega2xx]

21 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can't address all of Morris's points without spending a lot of time, but what would your response be if I showed you evidence for the formation of new species?

 

our photogeneteic tree o life is not verifiable evidence.  To be acceptable, it must include the how it  happened.    How can parents with no gene for a trait produce kids with the traits necessary to become a different species?  Case in point, how can a land animal(pakicetus) produce a kid with fins, when it did not have the gene for fins?

The usual answer is "mutations"   However a mutated cat  is still a cat.

Peace and joy

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Gen 7:20;  Surely if the highest  mo0untains were covered  By 23 feet

The Bible uses the Ancient Hebrew word eretz for land. Eretz can mean the entire earth, but more frequently refers to a large region. If eretz is referring to a region, then that just means that the mountains in that region were flooded.

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Since the fossils of sea life has been found on mountain tops, some geology certainly suggest there was a global flood.

The animals the fossils came from were not buried there, even scientists from YEC organizations agree with this. Large-scale changes in the geology of the planet led to fossils at mountain tops. The only questions is how long it took for these geological changes to occur. Scientific evidence suggests that changes on this scale take millions of years.

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What current biography  suggest there was no global flood?

Biogeography - where animals live. There are other examples, but the best is the mammalian population of Australia. The native mammals (that haven't been introduced by recent settlers) on this continent are exclusively marsupials, with two exceptions. Scientific evidence says this is because the continent became isolated when mammals were still relatively new and were all marsupials. A life-destroying global flood would require that only marsupials somehow traveled to Australia and over some sort of land bridge that is no longer present (and hasn't been present for thousands of years, if not longer).

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I don;'t know if dhChristian would  be interested, but I would.   

Peach and joy

I usually don't like responding with only a link, but I have work to get back to, so I'll make an exception here:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

This link will show several examples of observed speciation, but there are more.

[The Barbarian]

Since evolution is directly observed to happen, and since even many creationist groups now admit the fact of new species, the article seems to be a failed effort.

Just saying.

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I usually don't like responding with only a link, but I have work to get back to, so I'll make an exception here:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

This link will show several examples of observed speciation, but there are more.

The problem with that is that speciation does not result a new species.  The inability to mate doesn't make a new species.

Also in the only 2 studies I am aware of, salamanders and gulls, the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls.  One studied classified the salamanders as a sub species,

Also, it is impossible to study all populations of salamanders,  so they can't tell what happened in those groups.