God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

13 hours ago, Cletus said:

apes did not evolve into humans.

The evidence supports this hypothesis. I do not believe it is likely that God made this evidence available if He did not create through the process of evolution.

13 hours ago, Cletus said:

there is zero links.  zero evidence for evolution.

Your assertion is completely false. There are quite literally dozens of discoveries of fossil remains that suggest the development of modern humans from ape-like ancestors. This is for one species. The total of evidence within paleontology only further supports evolution. There are additional fields of science that support the evidence in paleontology. Denial of this evidence only indicates an unwillingness to fully investigate God's creation.

[one.opinion]

12 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

God made everything the way He wanted,  when He wanted, where He wanted, and  how He wanted.

Are 155 pages really necessary???????

             

So, what's the big?

 

For me, the big "whoopdeedoo" is this - many Christians refuse to actually look at the evidence for evolution, yet feel free to accuse those of us that do of litany of errors. These errors range from simply reading the Bible incorrectly (I do not find this offensive) to hidden atheism (which I do find offensive).

I wish to correct the misconception that one cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ and also accept the evidence for God's creation of living things through the process of evolution.

[one.opinion]

11 hours ago, HAZARD said:

When did chimps evolve and gradually die out as they became man. I still see chimps as they were from the beginning. They don't look anything like this?

You've inadvertently stumbled upon another argument that Creation Ministries International has included in a list of arguments that they believe young earth creationists should not use. In response to the statement, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?" CMI responds:

Quote

The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’

The argument only highlights a complete lack of understanding of the concept of large-scale evolution. There is nothing wrong with not understanding evolution, it just doesn't make a great deal of sense to try to defend young earth creationism with clearly poor arguments.

[dad2]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

The evidence supports this hypothesis. I do not believe it is likely that God made this evidence available if He did not create through the process of evolution.

 

Statement of faith in TOE. Now that was clear.

 

Quote

There are quite literally dozens of discoveries of fossil remains that suggest the development of modern humans from ape-like ancestors.

False. I would not call post flood man ape like. If you want to include apes in the list that sort of look somewhat like humans, that is religion. No evidence or support. So you do not realize man evolved a lot and adapted since Noah's day. Nor do you know what is an ape skull from a man's. That is ignorance not evidence.

 

This is for one species. The total of evidence within paleontology only further supports evolution. There are additional fields of science that support the evidence in paleontology. Denial of this evidence only indicates an unwillingness to fully investigate God's creation.

 

[one.opinion]

11 hours ago, dad2 said:

So what 'Adam and Eve' you believe in I have no idea. Is it a couple that had animals ancestors? Is it a couple that lived in a time when mysterious other people populated the earth also? Is it a couple that took millions of years to evolve?

The answer is - I don't know the answer.

The most likely scenario in my mind is exactly what I stated in a detailed response to @Starman some time ago. I think the most likely explanation is that the special creation explained in Genesis two refers to God adding a spiritual aspect to two humans - Adam and Eve - that had been brought into physical existence through natural processes that were entirely God's creation. In fundamental ways, the our spiritual existence is more "real" than our physical existence. The physical bodies we now possess are temporary and present for a minuscule amount of time. Our "true" existence will persist after the physical death of our current bodies to be with our Creator for eternity (for those of us that have accepted His offered forgiveness and opportunity for new life).

However, I am not at all 100% sure of possibility. Unlike some, I do not pretend to have 100% certainty in what I believe is the best explanation. I also believe it is possible that God brought about humanity through the natural processes he set in place, BUT God could have created specifically Adam and Eve both physically and spiritually all at one time.

Additionally, God could have created all of humanity starting with Adam and Eve roughly 6000 years ago, but the evidence He has made available makes this possibility rather small, in my opinion.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, dad2 said:

False. I would not call post flood man ape like.

There is zero evidence that all of these fossil remains are post-flood.

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Nor do you know what is an ape skull from a man's.

It really isn't that hard for those well-versed in human anatomy. I'm a college professor that has taught Human Anatomy and Physiology for over 15 years. That qualifies me as slightly above amateur compared to those that study human anatomy professionally, and even I can tell the difference. There are many experts much more qualified than I that attest to the difference in simple bone anatomy.

Edited February 23, 2020 by one.opinion

[dhchristian]

12 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

God made everything the way He wanted,  when He wanted, where He wanted, and  how He wanted.

Are 155 pages really necessary???????

             

So, what's the big?

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

The answer is - I don't know the answer.

 

The bible already tells us how man got here. Clearly. There can be no descent from animals at all.

Quote

The most likely scenario in my mind is exactly what I stated in a detailed response to @Starman some time ago. I think the most likely explanation is that the special creation explained in Genesis two refers to God adding a spiritual aspect to two humans - Adam and Eve - that had been brought into physical existence through natural processes that were entirely God's creation.

Absolutely against the bible. Adam and Eve were created and the first people on earth. Not just two humans sharing ancestors with flatworms that got some strange dose of spiritual charm.

 

Quote

In fundamental ways, the our spiritual existence is more "real" than our physical existence. The physical bodies we now possess are temporary and present for a minuscule amount of time. Our "true" existence will persist after the physical death of our current bodies to be with our Creator for eternity (for those of us that have accepted His offered forgiveness and opportunity for new life).

Like Jesus, we have both. He ate food and said, can a spirit eat? No. He proved He was physical also. Both. But that is a diversion. The issue is not whether the physical or spiritual get more points in importance here. The issue is believing that God made a man and woman as the bible says, or rejecting this.

 

Quote

 I also believe it is possible that God brought about humanity through the natural processes he set in place, BUT God could have created specifically Adam and Eve both physically and spiritually all at one time.

 

So Adam and Eve were just people in your scenario. Lots of people around and those two just got the lottery win so that they got some spirit component also. Not like the poor other members of mankind that had none of that, but I guess were like apes? Ha. That is not anything like what God revealed and told us about how He created.

Quote

Additionally, God could have created all of humanity starting with Adam and Eve roughly 6000 years ago, but the evidence He has made available makes this possibility rather small, in my opinion.

Nor much chance God actually told the truth about it then, in your books. OK. But one thing you do have faith in and certainty...TOE. Got it.

 

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

There is zero evidence that all of these fossil remains are post-flood.

Or that they are not as far as science goes. However, in the bible we do know man was here all the time. Animals and plants also. Therefore since they are not in the fossil record, what should that tell you?