God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

Just now, enoob57 said:

no lets not

I don’t know how old your children are, so it certainly may not be a point of importance at their age. If they are, just say so. Otherwise, I don’t understand why you are reluctant to admit one way or another.

[The Barbarian]

55 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 
No they just understand plain English   

If it was plain, then almost all Christians would  agree on it.   But it's not plain.   Since the is used in the Bible in various ways, there's no possible way to make it mean "global."

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Abdicate said:

The word of God says what it means and means what it says.

The problem for you, is that it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it says.  

[Eman_3]

23 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You are making a statement for which you have no evidence.  Let me give you a scientific truth---to be the same the DNA has to be exactly the same, or the results to prove something is of no value.  I may e wrong about this think and I may remembering it wrong, but I think man and bananas have some similar DNA.

60% actually, just like chickens and the fruit fly.

But all of that has a logical explanation, if you have an understanding of DNA and evolution. As we go further along the branches of the evolutionary tree, our genes are less similar to the next species. The further away, the less commonality. But for all living things, a lot of the DNA is devoted to "housekeeping", controlling basic cellular function, controlling the cell cycle and helping cells divide. The DNA strand is not just a few hundred elements, it is hundreds of millions of elements.

Genetics is a science discreet from evolution, yet it fully supports evolutionary theory.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Eman_3 said:

60% actually, just like chickens and the fruit fly.

This number is highly variable, depending on the portions of the genome being compared. For a comparison across the entire genome, the DNA similarity between humans and bananas is about 4%, but the percentage is much higher when comparing certain protein-coding genes.

A genome-wide comparison shows much greater similarity within the vertebrates, and drops rather precipitously when we compare other groups of animals, down to nearly zero with other kingdoms. 

[omega2xx]

On 11/18/2019 at 7:56 AM, Eman_3 said:

60% actually, just like chickens and the fruit fly.

But all of that has a logical explanation, if you have an understanding of DNA and evolution. As we go further along the branches of the evolutionary tree, our genes are less similar to the next species. The further away, the less commonality. But for all living things, a lot of the DNA is devoted to "housekeeping", controlling basic cellular function, controlling the cell cycle and helping cells divide. The DNA strand is not just a few hundred elements, it is hundreds of millions of elements.

Genetics is a science discreet from evolution, yet it fully supports evolutionary theory.

Any one educated in our failed public education systems has been taught about evolution since about the 5th grade.  I know as  much about evolution as you do and probably more.  I certainly know you can't prove even one thing evolution preaches.  I can prove "after their kind" and you can't falsify it. 

Of course our genes are less similar to every other species, and there is no next species.  DNA is not about housekeeping, it is about not only identifying species, it is about identifying distinct, different species.  It will tell if I am homo sapien, black, white, English, Spanish, German, etc.  DNA has nothing to do with controlling the cell cycle  or dividing cells.  While DNA does have many elements, I doubt if you can support it has hundred of millions of elements in one species.

However the number of elements is irrelevant.  It will always do its function of identifying the species from which it came..

Genetics is a science discreet from evolution but it totally and completely refutes evolution and proves "after their kind."

Love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

On 11/18/2019 at 9:26 AM, one.opinion said:

This number is highly variable, depending on the portions of the genome being compared. For a comparison across the entire genome, the DNA similarity between humans and bananas is about 4%, but the percentage is much higher when comparing certain protein-coding genes.

A genome-wide comparison shows much greater similarity within the vertebrates, and drops rather precipitously when we compare other groups of animals, down to nearly zero with other kingdoms. 

The percentage is irrelevant.  DNA will never identify a human as anything other than a human  a banana as a banana, and an ape as an ape.

Love, peace and joy

[omega2xx]

On 11/17/2019 at 11:36 AM, The Barbarian said:

You've merely assumed that eretz (meaning land, as in "this land" , "my land", "the land of Israel", etc.  must always mean "global."   It would seem, given the usages in the Bible, that you are fooling yourself.

 

 

I don't know what the other person is assuming but when the verse says, the water covered the mountains  IMO, they have made a very good assumption, and is far better than your biased OPINION, for which you offer no supporting evidence as usual.

What images in the Bible?  Be specific if you can.

[omega2xx]

On 11/16/2019 at 11:38 PM, Abdicate said:

Amen! I guess they just can't read for the dogma in front of their faces... what's the word call it - oh I know, traditions of men.

Since you cant support your view, you are basing your view on the biased  OPINIONS  of men.

[omega2xx]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:33 AM, Eman_3 said:

I did not make a statement but offered a possibility. My original statement was ...

"And even if your proposition is correct, would it not be reasonable that if God created man as a completely different species, the DNA match would be much lower, not as high as 84.4%? In fact, man should not share any DNA with chimps. "

You are committing the " reductio ad absurdum " facllacy, the the appeal to extremes.

our direct statement was on p. 30--- The chimpanzee has 99% commonality with humans. Gorillas have 98% commonality. Orangutans have 97%, and the  rhesus macaque 93%.

You made 2 on that post.