God used Evolution to 'create' man

[HAZARD]

On 2/19/2020 at 3:46 PM, The Barbarian said:

Because Jesus is wholly man as well as wholly God.   You've just confirmed my point for me. 

 

 

Moses asked God to show him His Glory.

Exodus 33:1823, V. 18, And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 
    19, And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 
    20, And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 
    21, And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 

    22, And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee WITH MY HAND while I pass by:

    23, And I will take away my HAND, and thou shalt see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.

If God has a face, a hand, and BACK PARTS, then He must also have front parts, and thereby a BODY. A Spirit body that men can see when God allows it.

[HAZARD]

On 2/21/2020 at 3:31 AM, 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.

 

Moses asked God to show him His Glory.

Exodus 33:1823, V. 18, And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 
    19, And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 
    20, And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 
    21, And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 

    22, And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee WITH MY HAND while I pass by:

    23, And I will take away my HAND, and thou shalt see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.

If God has a face, a hand, and BACK PARTS, then He must also have front parts, and thereby a BODY. A Spirit body that men can see when God allows it.

[HAZARD]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:32 PM, 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.

 

 

Moses asked God to show him His Glory.

Exodus 33:1823, V. 18, And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 
    19, And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 
    20, And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 
    21, And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 

    22, And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee WITH MY HAND while I pass by:

    23, And I will take away my HAND, and thou shalt see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.

If God has a face, a hand, and BACK PARTS, then He must also have front parts, and thereby a BODY. A Spirit body that men can see when God allows it.

[HAZARD]

On 2/21/2020 at 1:16 PM, The Barbarian said:

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

 

 

 

In the end, Charles Darwin doubted his own THEORY.

Charles Darwin Himself wrote this.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III) "Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)

 

Many have probably read this before, I stumbled on it not long ago and will use this when debating evolutionists who quote his work.

 "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
"Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
 (endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)

 

Here's the letter   The Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Chapter I

 

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one [Page 25] side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years,[often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy.] Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man domesticated the species. In the case of multiple origins part of the difference was produced under natural conditions. I should infinitely prefer the theory of single origin in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there seems to me some à priori improbability (seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that throughout all times, and throughout all the world, that man should have domesticated one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis. Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that more than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man.

 

Is Evolution quite possibly the Biggest lie ever told?

   "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." — Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada.

• "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." — Sir Arthur Keith, (author of Foreword to The Origin of Species, 100th edition), wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith.

• "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." — Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), Batesville Daily Guard, May 28, 2003.

• "Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." — Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977.

• "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" — Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.

• "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark." — Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist.

• "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." — Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229.

• "A building is absolute proof there was a builder, and creation is absolute proof there is a Creator. The big question is, are you good enough to go to Heaven when you die? Here's God's standard: 'Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.' No liar or thief will inherit the Kingdom of God. Have you lied, stolen, or looked with lust . . . even once? 'All liars will have their part in the lake of fire.' It's not God's will that you perish. He made a way for you to be forgiven: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Then Jesus rose from the dead. Please, today, repent and trust Him, and you will pass from death to life.

Edited February 23, 2020 by HAZARD

[dad2]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Quote

Possibly, yes. It is also possible that this is metaphorical.

 I do not think that everyone that mentioned the first man or woman in the whole bible were talking about something that was not a real fact. Name any indication anywhere that creation as told in Genesis is some 'allegory'?

 

Quote

The special creation could also have been at the spiritual level, since God is spirit and he made the essence of Adam and Eve to be in His likeness

No. Since God formed the man like a potter forms clay, and the man had a body that was able to reproduce and bones so that the woman could be made from his body. Adam also walked and talked. Adam had the animals brought to him and named each one. If Adam had descended from them that would be quite a trick!

 

Quote

. This special creation could be in a completely different realm of existence.

Did Jesus forget to mention that when talking of the first man and woman? Did all the prophets and apostles and even angels that talked of His creation forget to tell us they were kidding? No.

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Is Evolution quite possibly the Biggest lie ever told?

The strength of the concept of evolution is that it is supported by evidence, not quotes.

[HAZARD]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The strength of the concept of evolution is that it is supported by evidence, not quotes.

Hi, one.opinion, Did you read this??

 

The Father of the THEORY of evolution, Charles Darwin Himself wrote this. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. God created everything and nothing was made that was not made by Him. (John 1:3-4).

 

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III) "Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)

[He even calls it a THEORY himself!!]

 

Many have probably read this before, I stumbled on it not long ago and will use this when debating evolutionists who quote his work.

 "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)
"Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin
 (endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)

 

Here's the letter   The Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web: Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Chapter I

 

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one [Page 25] side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years,[often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy.] Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of the multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated since man domesticated the species. In the case of multiple origins part of the difference was produced under natural conditions. I should infinitely prefer the theory of single origin in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there seems to me some à priori improbability (seeing how fond savages are of taming animals), that throughout all times, and throughout all the world, that man should have domesticated one single species alone, of the widely distributed genus Canis. Besides this, the close resemblance of at least three kinds of American domestic dogs to wild species still inhabiting the countries where they are now domesticated, seem to almost compel admission that more than one wild Canis has been domesticated by man.

 

Is Evolution quite possibly the Biggest lie ever told?

   "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." — Malcolm Muggeridge, Journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Canada.

• "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." — Sir Arthur Keith, (author of Foreword to The Origin of Species, 100th edition), wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith.

• "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." — Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), Batesville Daily Guard, May 28, 2003.

• "Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." — Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977.

• "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" — Charles Darwin, Evolution or Creation, p.139.

• "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark." — Richard Leakey, paleo-anthropologist.

• "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." — Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229.

• "A building is absolute proof there was a builder, and creation is absolute proof there is a Creator. The big question is, are you good enough to go to Heaven when you die? Here's God's standard: 'Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.' No liar or thief will inherit the Kingdom of God. Have you lied, stolen, or looked with lust . . . even once? 'All liars will have their part in the lake of fire.' It's not God's will that you perish. He made a way for you to be forgiven: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Then Jesus rose from the dead. Please, today, repent and trust Him, and you will pass from death to life.

Edited February 23, 2020 by HAZARD

[dad2]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The strength of the concept of evolution is that it is supported by evidence, not quotes.

The lie of evolution is that is is supported by evidence. Only modern evolving is supported by evidence. Evolution as the big reason for life on earth is a belief set. Nothing more. A belief that opposes Scripture.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

 I do not think that everyone that mentioned the first man or woman in the whole bible were talking about something that was not a real fact.

The possible metaphor in my mind is the “surgery” part, not the existence of Adam and Eve. I have made it abundantly clear that I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You are trying so hard to refute everything that you are not even attempting to understand anyone else’s viewpoint.

[one.opinion]

32 minutes ago, dad2 said:

The lie of evolution is that is is supported by evidence.

Most rational people see the obvious evidence. Multiple young earth creation scientists recognize that the evidence supports evolution. They are also much more familiar with the actual evidence. There isn’t anything I could present to you that would change your mind in any way, so it is pointless to discuss the science with you.