Ah, that's a different claim from the usual. Did you see God create life?Actually , God didn't create the Universe ,just life .
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ah, that's a different claim from the usual. Did you see God create life?Actually , God didn't create the Universe ,just life .
Did I see a creator , create life ? Of course not I didn't exist .Ah, that's a different claim from the usual. Did you see God create life?
So you're not a witness and have no evidence. So we throw out your claim and defer to science with its evidence and methodology.Did I see a creator , create life ? Of course not I didn't exist .
Not according to what we observe.Do I understand enough about physics , biology and chemistry to make a logical conclusion based on evidence , sure !
Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .So we throw out your claim and defer to science with its evidence and methodology.
No, i can easily show you to be wrong if you even make a proper claim.You are a robot aren't you , I know this because you have zero ability
How would you prove this?Actually , God didn't create the Universe ,just life .
I have to correct you already. The fact of evolution is not an assumption. But you are almost certainly scientifically illiterate, otherwise you would not have made such a statement. And you have refused to learn the basics of science so there is not way to educate you and show you the error of your ways.Not really, you are assuming the first humans were created naturally which they weren't .
Okay, so you do not understand the basics of evidence or logic for that matter. Once again, are you willing to learn?Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .
My evidence is the lack of evidence !
Physics or chemistry cannot naturally create biology therefore the answer is an alternative . That is proof !
Three false statements. But it's the best you can do.Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .
My evidence is the lack of evidence !
Physics or chemistry cannot naturally create biology therefore the answer is an alternative . That is proof !
In reality H sapiens was around maybe 200,000 years before the god of the bible was. Only in the folktale were they created by that god.Not really, you are assuming the first humans were created naturally which they weren't .
Certain facts, natural physics and chemistry can create ''blobs''In reality H sapiens was around maybe 200,000 years before the god of the bible was. Only in the folktale were they created by that god.
It's a bit like pointing out we don't encounter magic in reality, then arguing about Harry Potter's wand technique.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.Yeh thats an incorrect reading.
I feel like I will be explaining this until the day I die but here it goes again.
Mankind created on day 6, as explained very clearly in Genesis 1. Adam on day 2, explained somewhat cryptically given it says he was made from earth BEFORE there was any plants or rain. We know this is day 2 from the explanation given in the 7 days of creation. Eve is THE EARLIEST day 8, since "no helper" could be found for Adam on day 6, God removes his rib, puts him in a deep sleep, and then creates Eve. Since God rests on day 7, the earliest day she is created is day 8.
You don't get the same problem if you read it as it is written. There is nothing crude about the single narrative, it is misunderstood by Christian scholars.
You want incestuous beginnings? Sure, go for it. You want to read a story that make more historical sense? Read it as I do. At least that way you have multiple couples (thems) created on day 6, and you don't have incestuous beginnings. It also means humans were on earth for a lot longer and BEFORE Adam and Eve experienced the fall from Eden.
Christians don't like this interpretation for one reason only, and that is because the think their "original sin" philosophy will fall down like a house of cards.
That took the whole of 0.1s to know you are lying to me .I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.
In Genesis 1: 27 it reads: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
So far I’m just reading a bout a male and a female. It’s not at all clear that there are more than two. And it’s the sixth day.
Then in Genesis 2: 4-8 it reads: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground — 7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
One big weirdness is that this account has a man created on the same day that god created the earth and the heavens. I thought that was day one! But the earlier account says it was on day six! You can’t have it both ways. These are two different stories, crudely clumped together. And the prose is clumsy, to say the least.
There’s no stated transition to another day when comes Genesis 2:18:
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”
And likewise there's no passing of days mentioned moving on to Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Likely the brothers and sisters initially married. It wasn’t until later the laws were given concerning and forbidding incest.The mythical story of Adam and Eve puzzles me, because there's just mention of their having sons, and then these sons have wives. Where did the wives come from? Did these sons marry sisters back then? Was such incest allowed? It all just highlights the mythical nature of the Adam and Eve story.
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.
In Genesis 1: 27 it reads: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
So far I’m just reading a bout a male and a female. It’s not at all clear that there are more than two. And it’s the sixth day.
Then in Genesis 2: 4-8 it reads: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground — 7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”
One big weirdness is that this account has a man created on the same day that god created the earth and the heavens. I thought that was day one! But the earlier account says it was on day six! You can’t have it both ways. These are two different stories, crudely clumped together. And the prose is clumsy, to say the least.
There’s no stated transition to another day when comes Genesis 2:18:
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”
And likewise there's no passing of days mentioned moving on to Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Wow he owns a Donut King?a massive demonstration of the DK of your own.
Clearly you don't understand the TOE.Evolution theory would rule out Adam and Eve . The fact that new born babies cannot survive in the wild without care rules out evolution.
So where did Adam's and Eve's come from , if not created and formed as fully grown adults by the creator?
Your time evaluation is subjective .Clearly you don't understand the TOE.
The earliest life forms that we actually have fossils of are single cell organisms that go back 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. They do not have separate sexes, nor do they take care of their young. Those kinds of things evolved slowly over the eons.
It wasn't until about 1.2 billion years ago that new species of unicellular life (such as algae) evolved which had two sexes. And these still did not care for their young.
That particular trait appears to have evolved with therapods, a specific group of dinosaurs. They date back around 75 million years, and there significant evidence of nest building and parental care.
It was during the dinosaur era that mammaliaforms evolved (the direct ancestors of mammals), which show some degree of parenting. All their descendents, including humans (who have been around 200,000 to 300,000 years), inherited and amplified those parenting instincts.
No, non avian dinosaurs died out long before humans evolved.Your time evaluation is subjective .
The theory of everything doesn't require made up stuff .
Your example is off topic .
Dinosaurs weren't very sentient and kept eating the ''humans'' and the chickens . It wasn't very productive in our research so we had to eliminate the Dinosaurs so your sentience could evolve .
Who told you that?No, non avian dinosaurs died out long before humans evolved.