Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,025
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   963
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, Behold said:

Scripture does not have to say "how" God created, it only needs to explain THAT He created it all. 

And it doesn't say how.   Lots of people have added their own ideas to scripture, but that's not God's word.   If He thought it was important He would have told us. 

 

8 minutes ago, Behold said:

That you here denied  the bible as Truth, is ...

...an appalling falsehood.  I can only hope that you're just upset and don't realize what you are saying.   I merely accept the Bible as it is, without man's additions.   And God won't care if you don't agree on exactly how things were created.   None of us will be judged on that.

10 minutes ago, Behold said:

I see that you essentially  stated that Genesis is a myth.

No.  It's parable.   As even ancient Christians understood.    And God doesn't care whether you accept it or redo it as a literal history, unless you make an idol of your opinion and insist Christians must believe it.

13 minutes ago, Behold said:

You know, its one thing to be a bible corrector, but its a different league of your own to be found on a Christian Forum castigating the word of God,  as you are doing

Do you honestly think that sort of behavior is going to convince anyone you're right?   Calm yourself and remember you're trying to be an imitation of the one Who died for you.  

15 minutes ago, Behold said:

I think that i told you on another Christian Forum where you were found slandering the Work of God,  that your God is your opinion

To you He may be an opinion.   But to Christians He's our Creator and Savior.   He is yours too, if you truly believe.

18 minutes ago, Behold said:

And if your opinion is not your God, then its certainly not the  Holy Bible that you just spit on.....in your post to me, so that all could see.

Your opinion is not the Bible.   It's just your opinion, and most of the world's Christians don't agree with you.  And that's not "spitting" on you, much less spitting on the Bible.

It seems, I offended you at some point in the past.   If so, I ask your forgiveness; I may be blunt, but I don't intend to hurt anyone.    Let it go; forgiveness is something you do for yourself as much as for for those who have trespassed against you.   If you don't, it will corrode your soul.  

It didn't hurt me; I wasn't even  aware that I affected you so.   It hurt you, and I'm sorry that I said whatever it was that did this.   Let it heal now.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, The Barbarian said:

And it doesn't say how.   Lots of people have added their own ideas to scripture, but that's not God's word.   If He thought it was important He would have told us. 

 

...an appalling falsehood.  I can only hope that you're just upset and don't realize what you are saying.   I merely accept the Bible as it is, without man's additions.   And God won't care if you don't agree on exactly how things were created.   None of us will be judged on that.

No.  It's parable.   As even ancient Christians understood.    And God doesn't care whether you accept it or redo it as a literal history, unless you make an idol of your opinion and insist Christians must believe it.

Do you honestly think that sort of behavior is going to convince anyone you're right?   Calm yourself and remember you're trying to be an imitation of the one Who died for you.  

To you He may be an opinion.   But to Christians He's our Creator and Savior.   He is yours too, if you truly believe.

Your opinion is not the Bible.   It's just your opinion, and most of the world's Christians don't agree with you.  And that's not "spitting" on you, much less spitting on the Bible.

It seems, I offended you at some point in the past.   If so, I ask your forgiveness; I may be blunt, but I don't intend to hurt anyone.    Let it go; forgiveness is something you do for yourself as much as for for those who have trespassed against you.   If you don't, it will corrode your soul.  

It didn't hurt me; I wasn't even  aware that I affected you so.   It hurt you, and I'm sorry that I said whatever it was that did this.   Let it heal now.

 

 

 

This is what i actually said.

You can try again if you like,,  that'll be fine.

-

Scripture does not have to say "how" God created, it only needs to explain THAT He created it all.  YET< it does explain exactly How God created everything....    Colossians 1:16

That you here denied  the bible as Truth, is something that you can work out with the One who wrote it, after you die.

He'll be there.   Take your time.

I see that you essentially  stated that Genesis is a myth,, as you define its truth as "men's addition".... and that these  "men", whom you didn't name or define,  according to your scriptural slander....wrote the myth.... as you are defining your personal opinion regarding the word of God.

You know, its one thing to be a bible corrector, but its a different league of your own to be found on a Christian Forum castigating the word of God,  as you are doing , and even worse to be doing it with no quotes, no evidence, no proof, .... just your opinion.

I think that i told you on another Christian Forum where you were found slandering the Work of God,  that your God is your opinion, and i see that you are always the same, no matter where i find you next.

And if your opinion is not your God, then its certainly not the  Holy Bible that you just spit on.....in your post to me, so that all could see.

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

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You think you have but you have only verified my claim that you do not know what constitutes evidence.

I have verified evidence for natural selection. This is very easy to see by the example from the AiG site of predators culling prey that are not as suited genetically as others in a population.

Just to remind you what you continued to claim since December 20th (on page 91, toward the bottom):

Quote

Your usual MO, talk and no evidence.  Thanks for verifying something I already knew You don't understand mutations., and you can't prove natural selection.  You have accepted a false statmenet by faith alone.

You are claiming that natural selection does not exist.

On page 105, you claim that ICR denies natural selection.

Quote

Are you serious?  The scientist at ICR, who are  just as qualified as you are, maybe more qualified, deny natural selection.

Unsurprisingly, you provided no evidence for your assertion. I showed you that ICR, AiG, and CMI all accept natural selection.

On page 106, I offered you a definition to discuss.

Quote

Natural selection, process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution.

You acted like a small child and refused to discuss this.

So let's look at a piece of evidence that shows natural selection as a means of evolution (heritable change in a population over time).

The rock pocket mouse lives in rocky areas in southern Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico. There are light colored varieties and dark colored varieties. The light colored varieties live on other rock formations that are lighter in color and are more camouflaged there. The dark colored varieties tend to live on volcanic (darker) rock, where they are better camouflaged.

image.png.37c11e19190dad47839203efec0ab772.png

(top left - light mouse on light rock: top right - dark mouse on dark rock: bottom left - dark mouse on light rock: bottom right - light mouse on dark rock)

The volcanic rock is found in relatively small areas that are distinctly isolated (up to dozens of miles) from one another. Interestingly, the different sub-populations on volcanic rock show different genetic mechanisms for achieving the darker color. Researchers studied the abundance of the different colored mice on the different rock type with the following results.

image.png.d7cc423ee58f9d51704e464f4e671621.png

This shows the distribution of light and dark mice on light and dark rock at several sites that the researchers studied.

This clearly shows natural selection - "process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype". The dark versions of the species have genetic differences that make them better suited to their environment. The light versions of the species have genetic differences that make them better suited to their environment. Thus, this is a great example of natural selection seen out in the real habitat.

Remember, evolution is the heritable change in a population over time. Due to natural selection within this species, the dark versions of this mouse evolved (the researchers identified a mutation in a particular gene involved in pigmentation) and are better suited to living on the dark rocks.

So here we are, clear evidence of both evolution and natural selection. While it is true that these are still members of the same species, this single example clearly refutes your claims that evolution has not been observed, and that natural selection does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,025
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   963
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

57 minutes ago, Behold said:

You can try again if you like,,  that'll be fine.

I get that you disagree with other Christians on how to interpret the creation story.   That doesn't mean you or most Christians are denying the truth of the Bible.   You're denying what other Christians think it is and they deny what you think it is.  None of us is God and so we can disagree with each other, without saying God is wrong.

If you thought about it for a while, I'm sure you could see this is true.   The important part is for each of us to remember that we aren't God.   

And to remember how you interpret Genesis is not how you will be judged.  

Edited by The Barbarian
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I get that you disagree with other Christians on how to interpret the creation story.   That doesn't mean you or most Christians are denying the truth of the Bible.   You're denying what other Christians think it is and they deny what you think it is.  None of us is God and so we can disagree with each other, without saying God is wrong.

If you thought about it for a while, I'm sure you could see this is true.   The important part is for each of us to remember that we aren't God.   

And to remember how you interpret Genesis is not how you will be judged.  

Lets look at it again..

God said that He made everything "after its Kind", as in, fully formed, fully created.

You denied this, and said all these words are  just made up by "men"., and "after its kind" does not mean "after its kind", in your opinion.

I agree with God, so, lets look at this...

"after its Kind", according to God, according to the Word of God, according to Genesis 1 does NOT mean  using  birth, a seed, or a time to wait for His original LIVING creation to evolve and  manifest later as its fully formed self.

God said, "after its kind", as in, fully, formed, ... completed, .... Genesis 1

So, does the theory of evolution accept this as Truth?   Do you?  If it doesn't, and you don't,  then what proof do you have unless you try to bend the Truth regarding  "after its kind", into the concept of....=  needs more time to become fully evolved ?

And if you teach that, you are contradicting God's  OWN account of how HE Creates./ Created.

But you just did more then contradict How God did it, you actually denied that the bible, as found in Genesis, is even written by God... and you did this, on a Christian Forum.

Bad.<

So, once again....

"after its Kind", denies the NEED for evolution, which in fact, denies the "theory". Because.....evolution, this "theory",  to be in fact  a reality,....   there has to be a NEED for it, or at least a REASON for it.  And there isn't one.  NONE.

Does God need to use evolution..... when He can create Adam from Dirt, Eve from Adam, Jesus from a virgin and His Holy Seed, and you from your mom and pop's sexual union? = NO.

So who needs this "theory?    = Atheists, Agnostics, and Science.

One more time. : =  "after its KIND", is God defining in His word (Genesis)  that He created EVERYTHING fully formed &  fully CREATED,   Colossians 1:16

So... this then  NEGATES the NEED or REASON for Evolution OR  a "theory" of  evolution, which  in fact teaches scientific information that is   contrary to the Truth, regarding what GOD said HE DID and also explained HOW He did it.  Colossians 1:16

Edited by Behold
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

11 minutes ago, Behold said:

God said that He made everything "after its Kind", as in, fully formed, fully created.

You denied this, and said all these words are  just made up by "men"., and "after its kind" does not mean "after its kind", in your opinion.

Your assertion about what “after its kind” means is entirely speculation. It is not based on the Word of God, but based on the guesswork of fallible humans. Repeating it and demanding that it must mean what you say it means does not make it any more true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,025
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   963
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

49 minutes ago, Behold said:

Lets look at it again..

God said that He made everything "after its Kind", as in, fully formed, fully created.

You denied this, and said all these words are  just made up by "men"., and "after its kind" does not mean "after its kind", in your opinion.

Nope.   I agreed that He created every living thing after it's kind.  He just didn't say how he did that, and of course didn't say that they would always reproduce after their kind.  This is why creationist organizations like AIG have pointed out:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

56 minutes ago, Behold said:

You denied this, and said all these words are  just made up by "men"., and "after its kind" does not mean "after its kind", in your opinion.

If you keep on making up ideas and insisting that I said them, you're not going to do very well.   Yes, the concept of "reproduce after it's kind" is man's revision of God's word, which says that living things were created according to their kind (but doesn't specify how).    That doesn't mean God's word doesn't mean what it says.  It means some men have tried to change His word to suit them.    I'm sure you aren't trying to be deceptive.   I'm thinking that for some reason, you're not reading what I write very carefully.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

God said, "after its kind", as in, fully, formed, ... completed

How would there be an animal not fully formed?   Even the earliest transitional organisms are fully formed.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

So, does the theory of evolution accept this as Truth?

Evolutionary theory shows that it's very unlikely to have any organisms passing on their genes  if they are not fully formed and capable of survival in their own right.   I'm surprised anyone would think that was possible.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

what proof do you have unless you try to bend the Truth regarding  "after its kind", into the concept of....=  needs more time to become fully evolved ?

This is what I meant when I said that most people who oppose evolution, don't really understand what it is.   Every transitional had to be fully formed and capable of surviving in its environment before it could diversify into new species.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

But you just did more then contradict How God did it, you actually denied that the bible, as found in Genesis, is even written by God... and you did this, on a Christian Forum.

Remember, when you start getting excited, you start writing all sorts of imaginative things,most of which are not true, as in this instance.   Take a little time and think about it before you just start writing.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

"after its Kind", denies the NEED for evolution, which in fact, denies the "theory". Because.....evolution, this "theory",  to be in fact  a reality,....   there has to be a NEED for it, or at least a REASON for it.  And there isn't one.  NONE.

They are called "mutation" and "natural selection."    And yes, if the population lives in an environment that is relatively constant, natural selection will actually prevent evolution, as Darwin pointed out.   Only when the environment changes significantly, will a previously well-fitted population evolve.  Would you like to see some examples?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you now realize, it's directly observed, and even creationist websites admit the fact.

Saying what one believes is a far cry from it being true.    I say it can't be proved, so prove me wrong and post the evidence.

As you also learned, even creationist websites admit that new species appear from older species.

How about a  link I can check.  You misread so many things, I need a source to see if you read it correctly.

 

 

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

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I get that you disagree with other Christians on how to interpret the creation story.   That doesn't mean you or most Christians are denying the truth of the Bible.   You're denying what other Christians think it is and they deny what you think it is.  None of us is God and so we can disagree with each other, without saying God is wrong.

If you thought about it for a while, I'm sure you could see this is true.   The important part is for each of us to remember that we aren't God.   

And to remember how you interpret Genesis is not how you will be judged.  

I am getting dizzy from going around in this circle.  Pictures and graphs are not evidence.  Real verifiable evidence must include the science that allow or causes what is being claimed.  That is ALWAYS missing in your rhetoric.

love, peace, joy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  87
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  3,795
  • Content Per Day:  1.36
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  07/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Your assertion about what “after its kind” means is entirely speculation.

You are not a student of the bible?  Similar to Barbarian?

Its odd,  no.... it queer that both of you would think that "after its kind", or "after his kind", is not a bible verse.

Im teaching Genesis 1:24.  :
 

"and GOD SAID"...... 

SO, why don't you stop by a Bible Book Store and go in, and read this verse.

Then if you and the other want to pretend that its "man created" or "not in the bible", you can both tell that to God, as the verse referring to "after its kind", or "after his kind", = "and GOD SAID".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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