Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

51 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I have support, God's word, you all just choose to ignore the word of God.

FYI... you and @omega2xx are arguing the same thing. It is completely comical that neither of you actually read the posts enough to realize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Don't overthink it. If eretz is referring to a regional area, then the mountains in the regional area were covered.

I have never stated that "their interpretation" could not be correct, so the quick answer is "yes". I have claimed that a global flood is inconsistent with geological, paleontological, and biogeographical evidence. God could have miraculously made geology, the fossil record, and the distribution of living animals only appear to contradict a global flood.

False. I'm a conservative Christian and I disagree.

 

No one I have heard claimed it is impossible that eretz could be used in a global sense. The global interpretation simply doesn't match well with the evidence God has provided us.

You didn't answer the question.  If Mt Everest was covered why could he flood not be global.  Also, all life was destroyed.  If there was some land not under water some life could have survived.

The fact that you think a global flood is inconsistent with geological, etc evidence is  only you opinion. When you used word like "if" and "could have" You weaken your argument.

Henry Morris, who is much more qualified in this field than you are says there was.

Those who believe in evolution are not conservative Christians.

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

FYI... you and @omega2xx are arguing the same thing. It is completely comical that neither of you actually read the posts enough to realize this.

Love, peace, joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

17 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

I do not come from your education system, my education extends past secondary school and I am well versed in many sciences.

Evolution does not preach anything it is the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Your definition of DNA is at odds with the established scientific definition, you are describing speciation. I suggest you educate yourself on speciation.

Regretfully omega2xx, we have reached an impasse. I respect the scientific process and you refute what apologists refer as macro-evolution.

My education also extends past secondary school and you may be well verse in evolution, but not in  science.  For one things you can't prove even one things evolution preaches.

Nothing evolution preaches has ever been observed.  They need to push it back  million of years when no one was there,

Be specific.  How is my understanding at to odds with established scientific definition.  When it comes to speciation, you have yet to explain how salamanders and gulls remaining salamander and gulls is evidence of evolution. 

And you accept macro evolution by faith alone.  When you get some evidence to support the doctrines of Darwin, get back to me.

love, peace, joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

And yes, those are established facts derived from multiple tests from multiple independent sources.

Yes they are,  but they do not show how  one came from the other  Many life forms have DNA similar to other life forms, but the result always separated, they never link together.

Love, peace, joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Instead of putting your new interpretation on it, why not just let it be God's way?    Once you set your pride aside, and let it be as it is, it won't trouble you any longer.

I     do not have a new interpretation, it is the one I always use.

I am the one willing to let it be God's Way, you are not.  God and real science say "after their kind."  Evolution says, "not after their kind,." at some point

I resent you accusi9ng me of being prideful, simply because I disagree with you.  It seems that someone saying they are right and the other person doesn't understand, is the prideful one.

Love, peace, joy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I have support, God's word, you all just choose to ignore the word of God. The problem isn't me, no matter how many accusations are thrown at me. None of the theories of evilution will ever disprove the word of God. Period.

You must have misreads some of my post.  I am a staunch supporter of creation, based on Gods inspired, and inerrant word. specifically on "after their kind."  I reject evolution as not based on science and none of it can be proved.

Love, peace , joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

FYI... you and @omega2xx are arguing the same thing. It is completely comical that neither of you actually read the posts enough to realize this.

We are not.  I believe the Genesis flood was global, she does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You didn't answer the question.

I did answer the question - just as I have done in multiple other posts. I don't know if I can explain it any more clearly than I have already, but I will try. If "eretz" refers to a regional area, and not the entire globe, then only the land IN THAT AREA would have been covered in water. Mt. Everest was not in that area.

24 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Also, all life was destroyed.  If there was some land not under water some life could have survived.

If all life not on the Ark were destroyed, then a miracle unmentioned in the Bible would have been required to restore stable ecosystems. This claim is also inconsistent with the evidence God has made available to us.

28 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The fact that you think a global flood is inconsistent with geological, etc evidence is  only you opinion.

It is evidence-based opinion. Let's look specifically at a particular case of biogeography - the mammal life on Australia. Virtually all mammals (except those that have been recently introduced) on the continent are marsupials. Why would placental mammals, which are far more numerous on the rest of the planet, be absent from Australia? Did they simply run faster off the ark than the placental mammals, and put up a "do not enter" sign after they arrived? A better explanation, that is consistent with the fossil record and geological record, is that the Australian continent separated from the rest of the land masses on earth millions of years ago and mammalian life developed there differently than the rest of the planet.

34 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Henry Morris, who is much more qualified in this field than you are says there was.

You know that a single opinion is insufficient evidence. There are many opinions that the moon landing was a hoax. A vast majority of experts in the field believe differently from what Morris did. If you want to produce evidence, I'll be happy to look at it.

39 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Those who believe in evolution are not conservative Christians.

Why do you think you have the only opinion that matters on what is "conservative"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

8 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

We are not.  I believe the Genesis flood was global, she does not.

And the comedy continues... @Abdicate, do you want to set the record straight here?

Edited by one.opinion
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I     do not have a new interpretation, it is the one I always use.

It is a very modern revision of scripture, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

 God and real science say "after their kind."  Evolution says, "not after their kind,." at some point

Creationists revised it to read "reproduce after their kind", which the Bible does not.   And no, evolutionary theory does not say what you imagine.   Genetics has shown that all life on Earth is of one kind.

Let it be God's way, instead of yours.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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