Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

Go back and read your earlier post. Or better yet, read this one. Your tone in both is one of taunting.

If I have stooped to your level, I am sorry. From the heights of this horse it is difficult to see when to apply Proverbs 26:4, and when to apply Proverbs 26:5.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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........"

I am not going to address the subject of biological evolution per say, but will mention the whole foolishness of the "young Earth" doctrine.

Take a look at this picture (and please try to ignore the gal to the left).


What we are looking at is a car crash (obviously). We are ALSO looking at the skid marks that the car made before it crashed. In all likelyhood none of the first responders actually saw the crash took place but it is amazing how much detail they can reconstruct based on the evidence surrounding the wreck. The speed the car was going as well as the angle, even WHEN it happened to a rough degree. Now comparing this the evidence we see in the Universe we find that in order to accept a "young Earth/young Universe" we would have to believe that God created the wreck (or stars and planets) AND then proceeded to create the skid marks and all signs of things that actually happened for those stars and planets and galaxies to form for the sole purpose of creating a false history of things that never actually happened.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

I would hardly call what I wrote as a long discourse :-)

The verse is straightforward, you just seemed to have needed it to be made plainer.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

You need a teaching moment. Eve is the mother of all living souls as is written in Genesis 2

You are dishonest. I did not say Eve was the mother of all that was alive.
You take 1:30 and drop part of the verse

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


2:7And 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.

Atheists/evolutionists selectively ignore verses that do not fit their dogma.




28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

jfrog, I get your tactics for years on the atheeeeist boards. Darwinists on this board act just like the atheists elsewhere.

You misquote, make up quotes and misquote scripture. Leaving out verses no wonder Darwinists don't Love or respect the Word of God.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

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.

That's my point. Adam was somehow a specific creation of God, but if we take Eve being the mother of ALL living literally and with no exceptions then she somehow must also be the mother of Adam. I think we all reject that notion, but on what grounds can we reject it because the logic used to reach this point is sound. I reject the notion because I consider it an obvious exception which is what you seem to be trying to get at. However this also means that I can also reject other implications of Eve being the mother of ALL living as being obvious exceptions.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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........"

As I pointed out, you and Timmy suffer from the same affliction. You read the Bible from a Fundamentalist view point. For this reason you both err. The fact that you both will then go and reach different conclusions as to whether or not you should accept the Bible's message is irrelevant.

You erred with your hermeneutics.

And what is that last comment supposed to mean? Do you continue to taunt? The sad fact of the matter is you are the one who pops in and pontificates, blasting away at those who don't see it just as you do.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I am not going to address the subject of biological evolution per say, but will mention the whole foolishness of the "young Earth" doctrine.


What we are looking at is a car crash (obviously). We are ALSO looking at the skid marks that the car made before it crashed. In all likelyhood none of the first responders actually saw the crash took place but it is amazing how much detail they can reconstruct based on the evidence surrounding the wreck. The speed the car was going as well as the angle, even WHEN it happened to a rough degree. Now comparing this the evidence we see in the Universe we find that in order to accept a "young Earth/young Universe" we would have to believe that God created the wreck (or stars and planets) AND then proceeded to create the skid marks and all signs of things that actually happened for those stars and planets and galaxies to form for the sole purpose of creating a false history of things that never actually happened.

Randy, how can be so so sure that car didn't skid at a rate of 1/1,000,000th of an inch for 4 billion years and finally strike the tree?

Secondly, your "theory" doesn't take into account the possible effects of a cataclysmic global flood.

Which, if I remember correctly, neither you, nor Pelathias believe the flood account found in Genesis either.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

You need a teaching moment. Eve is the mother of all living souls as is written in Genesis 2

You are dishonest. I did not say Eve was the mother of all that was alive.
You take 1:30 and drop part of the verse

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


2:7And 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.

Atheists/evolutionists selectively ignore verses that do not fit their dogma.




28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

jfrog, I get your tactics for years on the atheeeeist boards. Darwinists on this board act just like the atheists elsewhere.

You misquote, make up quotes and misquote scripture. Leaving out verses no wonder Darwinists don't Love or respect the Word of God.

The bible never says that Eve is the mother of all living souls. That is an interpretation of scripture coadie. Learn the difference. I can just as easily interpret that to mean that Eve is the Mother of all living things. Which is the correct interpretation? Who knows? But trying to make major arguments off such a subjective verse that even you and Gary have to explain sure doesn't seem like a solid approach.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That's my point. Adam was somehow a specific creation of God, but if we take Eve being the mother of ALL living literally and with no exceptions then she somehow must also be the mother of Adam. I think we all reject that notion, but on what grounds can we reject it because the logic used to reach this point is sound. I reject the notion because I consider it an obvious exception which is what you seem to be trying to get at. However this also means that I can also reject other implications of Eve being the mother of ALL living as being obvious exceptions.

Adam was created by God fully developed as a human, Eve was made by God from Adam's rib, therefore neither one had mothers, so it is obvious that being the mother of all living souls means all those who were not directly created by God (Adam and Eve).

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I would hardly call what I wrote as a long discourse :-)

The verse is straightforward, you just seemed to have needed it to be made plainer.

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.


You can't have honest arguments with people that select which verses to ignore
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

When people practice castigating scripture, they cherry pick phrases and ignore inconvenient verses in the same chapters.

20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

God created man in His image, breathed life into him and he became a living soul. He can't wrap his head around humans are living souls and animals are living. They are diifferent kinds.