Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

the mother of all living

yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.

This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

the mother of all living

yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.

By the way Gary; you keep posting, but have you worked up the nerve to try and answer that "horse/donkey/mule" question yet? You brought up the question in the first place with your assertions about "kinds."

How about answering some questions?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

the mother of all living

yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.

Mother of all living. Pelthais says that scripture is not true:

Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.

They say the bible is a lie. That is why I don't get feelings hurt when I get called a liar by the Darwinists. Post #117

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Mother of all living. Pelthais says that scripture is not true:



They say the bible is a lie. That is why I don't get feelings hurt when I get called a liar by the Darwinists. Post #117



Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.

I guess "Mama coadie" wasn't the "mother of coadie" because she had biological antecedents as well. So, just how did you arrive on our planet?

And you did lie. Anyone who has ever read the papers of a graduate student in any accredited university and compared that writing to yours and looked at the way in which you "express" your ideas knows that you lied as well.

And notice, it's technically "against the rules" to call another poster on AFF a "liar." Yet you've lied so much and for so long that you actually exist as an except to the rule.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

the mother of all living

yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.

It clashes just as hard with her not giving birth to all those other animals, as in the case of Creationism

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.

Sir Fred was arguing in favor of a Hindu cosmology where there was no "creation" at all. He believed that the cosmos had always existed in order to fit his own religious ideas about the "Ages of Rama" in to our universe. This doctrine requires that the universe be at least 25 TRILLION years old!

I suppose we now know who coadie's god is:

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.

Real universities don't use wikipedia for References.

From The above wiki

there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one man (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children).

If there were other women around at the time of Eve that were not her offspring, that statment disagrees with the bible.

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

No Pelthais. It says other women were around during the time of Eve that were not descendents of her.

You misquoted wiki and wiki or the bible are true. Not both of them.

Not alive at the same time as "Adam"

Pelthais says science supports the bible

Wiki isn't science and his cut and paste didn't support his claim again.

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like Eve, "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, Eve lived much earlier than Adam – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Adam – due to the greater variability in male fecundity

I am tired of reading this balogna. Eve had her rib taken from Adam. Pelthais says wiki is true and wiki agrees with the bible. Get the stories straight.

How in the world does Pelthais tell us wiki is true when God caught Eve giving fruit to Adam who had been dead 50,000 years.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It clashes just as hard with her not giving birth to all those other animals, as in the case of Creationism

Yeah. Good point. Eve is the mother of the slime molds and pond scum? She's the mother of ALL living? She's the mother of elephants and kangaroos according to coadie's interpretation. coadie takes "devolution" further than even did Devo did.

Don't try and and "interpret" this passage either. Just read it and believe!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I guess "Mama coadie" wasn't the "mother of coadie" because she had biological antecedents as well. So, just how did you arrive on our planet?

And you did lie. Anyone who has ever read the papers of a graduate student in any accredited university and compared that writing to yours and looked at the way in which you "express" your ideas knows that you lied as well.

And notice, it's technically "against the rules" to call another poster on AFF a "liar." Yet you've lied so much and for so long that you actually exist as an except to the rule.

Not alive at the same time as "Adam"
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like Eve, "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, Eve lived much earlier than Adam – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Adam – due to the greater variability in male fecundity

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
934

Pelthais:

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

wiki says Adam and Eve were not alive the same time. Your claim that wiki supports the bible is false. It is impossible that God took a rib from Adam 80,000 years before he was created him .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Real universities don't use wikipedia for References.

From The above wiki


If there were other women around at the time of Eve that were not her offspring, that statment disagrees with the bible.



No Pelthais. It says other women were around during the time of Eve that were not descendents of her.

You misquoted wiki and wiki or the bible are true. Not both of them.

Not alive at the same time as "Adam"

Pelthais says science supports the bible

Wiki isn't science and his cut and paste didn't support his claim again.





I am tired of reading this balogna. Eve had her rib taken from Adam. Pelthais says wiki is true and wiki agrees with the bible. Get the stories straight.

How in the world does Pelthais tell us wiki is true when God caught Eve giving fruit to Adam who had been dead 50,000 years.

Whoa! Thanks coadie. You actually appear to be engaging the discussion on this point. Except I did not "cut-and-paste" anything. I merely posted a link. Reality is so elusive to you. Why? Drugs? Alcohol? Blunt force trauma? An open head wound?

Wikipedia is a handy web source for web based discussions. Almost nobody has a subscription or access at home to the journals that "real universities" use for citations. But then again, you've never set foot inside a university, have you?

And, the problems you have (above) in understanding human development does not negate the fundamental agreement I cited between the Bible and science. The wiki article obviously has no idea what the names of the individuals associated with the genetic markers were. Blanche? Joan? Freida? They have no idea. They simply import names associated with a broad and common societal understanding. I know that such complexities are beyond your scope. Do try and keep up.

Was the Biblical Eve "the mother" of the e.coli living inside your intestines? Was she "the mother" of the Tree of Life which was alive and living in the garden with her? Was she the mother of Adam? If not, at what point can we say she was NOT "the mother" of something that is or was alive?