Did God use evolution to create life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

In Genesis 1:30 God says that animals have life. Looks like your definition that the bible only calls men living is flawed...

breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I did put in the word living soul.
Took it right out of the bible. You deleted that part so you could call the argument flawed.

breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls.

Just cut and paste my statements

Please read with better accuracy.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Then why do the horse/donkey hybridization produce infertile offspring? If they were the same species or "kind" - the Bible says that they should continue to produce "after their kind."

It's because of a phenomena involving "Genetic Drift." The ancestors of the donkeys lived and reproduced in geographic isolation for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the ancestors of the horses did the same.

Though both species shared a common ancestor, they "drifted apart" genetically to the point that they could no longer produce fertile offspring when they were brought back together. This is an example of evolution "in the works." If human beings had not transported the two species back into proximity with one another and cross bred them they would have continued to drift even further apart.

Since they are unable to produce fertile offspring (though there is the occasional and very, very rare fertile mule) the process of speciation between horses and donkeys may already be permanent. They have evolved into two different "kinds" that produce offspring "after their own kind" now.

They are still basically the same species, and the idea of man evolving from non-human creatures is so unbiblical as to be silly to even consider it as anything other than a fable instigated by Satan who has fought against truth from the beginning, and has managed to deceive even many christians.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Don't apologize for not "being more involved." Lately, you've been at your "best" when you haven't been involved. Did you ever come to terms with the way you had "vomited" in error over the John MacArthur thing? Did you read Galatians 1, and get up to speed? I see that you've added a quote by him to your sig line. I guess you listened to me for once and repented of "stupid."
Also, please work on your own poor language skills if you wish to use them to taunt me. You do end up looking very foolish.

Really, the three of you guys just need to keep babbling away here and more and more Apostolic people will abandon your pseudo-science and Scripture wrangling.

If this were some sort of real debate, coadie, BroGary and Jason Badejo would have been relegated to the Monkey House at the Zoo by now. C'mon guys! Get up to speed and engage the material.

Pelathias, come down off your high horse.

I never ONCE intended to "taunt" you, can you say the same towards me?

If your saying Adam and Eve were the product of evolution and not direct creation by the hand of God, then I stand by my statement that it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a Christian say.

I apologize for my lack of proper typing skills, why would you insult me over a typo?

Furthermore, when it comes to scriptural wrangling, on this subject, you are the king.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.

You do realize that the very fact you have to go into a long discourse to try and explain that verse to where it is compatible with your theology gives others the license to go into long discourses and explain why it is compatible with theirs. The fact is that verse is not straightforward and requires interpretation and qualification such as your mother of all living that has a mother. Or such as coadies explanation that animals are not part of all living even though Genesis 1:30 says they are alive. The point was and still is that yall should have never brought it up as evidence against Pel's position.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Well, if God didn't put the first man to sleep and remove one of his ribs and turn that rib into the first woman, I don't see how that story can be true, in any meaningful sense. Metaphors can only stretch so far before they snap. What would the intended meaning of this one be, if not literal?

That is exactly right. If we're going to believe the Bible, it starts at Genesis 1. As I've said before, Timmy, again points out.

If were going by the BIBLE the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, a young earth, and that God directly created Adam and Eve.

Believe it if you want to (Pel), or don't. But to attempt to put Darwinism into the Genesis account is the pinnacle of foolishness.

"Professing themselves to be wise........"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.

Sorcerors.

Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom

By John Schroeder
The book shows you how evolutionists throw out important data, and tell your child to accept and believe some unknown processes that fill in the gaps for all their missing data. Mainly that your child evolved from a rock in the ocean, and then perhaps from some snake-like creature that finally developed legs. How this happened they can't explain. They only point to specie adaptation for various environments and then tell you that is "proof" of species totally changing into higher species.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I did put in the word living soul.
Took it right out of the bible. You deleted that part so you could call the argument flawed.

Just cut and paste my statements

Please read with better accuracy.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Again, the bible calls animals living. (Genesis 1:30). I'll just repeat myself again if thats what you are going to do.

[pelathais]

If we are supposed to understand Genesis 1:25, in a very literal fashion then donkeys and horses should be able to reproduce fertile offspring. Either that, or they should NOT be able to produce any offspring at all. They exist in a crazy "in between" realm that only an evolutionary model can explain.

Many YEC's and other "special creationists" have already come around to accepting this and other examples of "Micro-Evolution," though it does put one on the "slippery slope" toward "Macro-Evolution" as well.

All that's needed to rectify the conflict here is a simple application of hermeneutics that everyone already employs. Consider the "Sixth Day" in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:24-31 at least appears to be in conflict with Genesis 2:15-25.

How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Did God create the man before or after the animals?

Most Bible believers will look at the Genesis 2, account and see it as being the same story as Genesis 1, just told from a different angle. When the writer says in Genesis 2:19, that the animals were created "from the ground" and present to the man they apply a more expansive understanding regarding the time frame.

Genesis 2:19, doesn't say "when" the animals were created. It simply says they were created, and this information is provided after the information concerning the creation of the man. There is only a contradiction here if we demand that every word and every thought be applied with an unreasonably rigid literalism.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from a christian.

Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?

(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)

Pel,

you insulted me, but never answered the question I asked, care to answer?

Am I understanding you correctly that you view God as the creator of Adam and Eve ONLY in the sense that God originally created the organisms that would one day become humanity?

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by BroGary

To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.

The Bible shows that Adam was not the son of another creature, human or prehuman, bur was a direct and specific creation of God.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.