God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dad2]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:44 AM, The Barbarian said:

Jesus says He does not.   I'll go with his opinion.

 

If Jesus IS God how could He not have a body, since He resurrected from the dead in a body?

[dad2]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Evolution is the heritable change in a population over time. There is directly observable evidence for this.

 

Since it has been observed only for some hundred years or whatever, this has no bearing on the debate as a whole.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, dad2 said:

If Jesus IS God how could He not have a body, since He resurrected from the dead in a body?

So you're saying God has a body, only because the Son became man?

Pretty much gave up the farm on that one, I think.

 

[dad2]

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So you're saying God has a body, only because the Son became man?

Pretty much gave up the farm on that one, I think.

 

Jesus is God, no? Answer the question. If so, He has a body.

[Starman]

Hey Cletus,

Speaking only for myself, I believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, so I’m not headed down the wrong road as you imply.  I also believe that Adam and Eve were real people, created as explained in Genesis, but I also think that my understanding of the account is limited.   However, the point of this discussion is to try, if possible, to harmonize the scientific data with the Genesis creation account (a big “if”).  The data shows an old earth and changes in flora and fauna, with increasing complexity over geologic time. In my mind this does not point to Darwinian evolution (a random process based on genetic mutations and natural selection) -I believe the laws of physics and the probabilities associated with random processes make the classic Darwinian idea a non starter (not to mention the fine tuning of the universe which preceded an evolutionary process on earth). At the same time the data does suggest something other than creation of the universe in six 24 hour periods as in the traditional interpretation of Genesis. Reaching the objective here requires some humility and a willingness to let go of preconceived ideas while holding onto a high view of Scripture.  For some this is too emotionally stressful so perhaps they should abstain from the discussion.  For others this is an interesting topic worth pursuing.  

Do you have some insights on this discussion topic other than reaffirming the truth of Scripture - preaching to the choir. If so I’m interested. 
 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Starman

[The Barbarian]

On 2/19/2020 at 1:20 AM, dad2 said:

Being God, and having a body was your point?

Having a body is a consequence of being a biological entity.    Jesus became man, and thus has a body.   Before that, He did not.    No difference, really, than God or an angel assuming a body for a time, except in this case, Jesus became wholly human as well as wholly God.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by The Barbarian

[dad2]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Having a body is a consequence of being a biological entity.    Jesus became man, and thus has a body.   Before that, He did not.    No difference, really, than God or an angel assuming a body for a time, except in this case, Jesus became wholly human as well as wholly God.

 

 

Right, before He had a body He did not, although the angel of the Lord in the OT appeared in a body. Wrestling with Jakob..etc. As you may know the angel of the Lord is another name for Jesus in the OT many people believe.

Edited February 21, 2020 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

35 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Right, before He had a body He did not, although the angel of the Lord in the OT appeared in a body. Wrestling with Jakob..etc. As you may know the angel of the Lord is another name for Jesus in the OT many people believe.

Many people believe in bigfoot, reptile people, and so on.  Beliefs are easy.    Facts are hard.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Starman said:

 The data shows an old earth and changes in flora and fauna, with increasing complexity over geologic time. In my mind this does not point to Darwinian evolution (a random process based on genetic mutations and natural selection)

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Would you like to know how he knew?

 

 

[Starman]

Are you referring to the idea that natural selection is not random but deterministic, in contrast to the process of random mutation?