painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Why choose Genesis over other creation myths?
wa:do
wa:do
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Thief
Rogue Theologian
There you go with that fear thing again.....
Are you disagreeing with my read on Genesis?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Have your read the Tanakh Yerushalayim? (Koren Jerusalem Bible)?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Fair enough.....now let's toss everything on the table.....
And theory is a trump card?(evolution is good for me....God did it)
Back to faith.
RitalinO.D.
Well-Known Member
So you are of the opinion that God created man, and designed man to evolve?
Do you believe Adam & Eve to be the first two?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No.
Man as a species...Day Six.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply....dominate all things...
No names....no law...no garden....no restrictions.
Day seven....God rests.
THEN Chapter Two...a story of manipulation.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
So how do you explain other hominids?
The generations of inbreeding (i.e. Adam and Eve's children) was short which can't be explained by OEC or YEC considering we know that man has been on the planet thousands of years. We know man was not "created" let alone "created fully formed" so I'm interested how you can reconcile Adam with the hominid fossil record.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes, you have said this before. And then insisted Eve was a genetic clone to Adam.
- If Adam was the result of a developing species, what of the rest of his species?
- What was the necessity of Eve?
- Did Adam and Eves children mate with Adams "species"?
- What is the point of Adam and Eve?
newhope101
Active Member
No God did not make life look like it evolved, at all. Quite clearly the Kinds alive today are distinct. Same designer, same design, greatly different kinds. It takes an evolutionist to invent the commic strip common ancestors that no one can find, to explain it all. Evolutionists are the only ones that play make believe about irrefuteable connections and then change their minds. eg birds, knucklewalking ancestry, LUCA. So whatever you put up as evidence today may change tomorrow.
BTW...Humans share 50% of the DNA with a banana.
Genomics
I wonder what the common ancestor looked like!
Perhaps something like this!!!!! Could this theoretical assertion be evidence for TOE, just like the rest????
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Then why do we not find all the supposed "kinds" that exist today all fully formed throughout the fossil record? Why is it then that we instead find gradually changing fossils of greater and greater diversity as we ascend the geological strata? This is something you cannot just shrug off.
But how much does it take to distinguish one "kind" from another "kind". The differences between me and my brothers and very distinct, does this make us different "kinds"? What about the differences between different breeds of wolves? Are they "distinct" enough to be deemed different "kinds"? By what method do we distinguish between "kinds", and by by what measure do we determine certain "kinds" to be distinct?
We have found hundreds of common ancestors.
Nobody has ever supposed that there are "irrefutable connections". The fossil record is a vast and complicated puzzle that takes a long time to piece together, so the fact that our understanding of the overall picture changes depending on new discoveries shouldn't be surprising to anyone who understands geology.
Congratulations, you worked out that scientific theories change details depending on new evidence arising. Of course, this is a surprise to nobody. The fact is that not a single fossil ever discovered has contradicted evolutionary theory which, if evolution weren't true, should be extremely easy to do.
So, after all this time you still don't understand how evolution works?BTW...Humans share 50% of the DNA with a banana.
Genomics
I wonder what the common ancestor looked like!
Perhaps something like this!!!!! Could this theoretical assertion be evidence for TOE, just like the rest????
Thief
Rogue Theologian
1.....the rest are mentioned in Chapter Two.
I suspect they are the portion of humanity that we diverged from.
There does seem to be a sudden change in form.
Hence the long standing discussion of a missing link.
2.....she is the means and method for the divergence.
3....did they really have a choice?
4....Man as a species was probably behaving too much like an animal.
And though God has all the time in the universe to wait.....
if the form has taken a direction that will not develop....
then some tweaking will be needed.
And yes....
God is allowed to touch His creation.
It belongs to Him.
newhope101
Active Member
Hey immortal flame..I guess all your woffly post means you like my human/banana common ancestor!
Oh so you reckon you've found some common ancestors do you? I note no evidence to illustrate flavour of the month. What you have is 'common thinking', with equally credentialed researchers flapping around thinking different. So show us what you think the modern bird ancestor looks like, lovey. I wonder what you'll post and if it starts with...arch..!!!
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Regardless, of what you put up I have been down most roads before. They all end up in a mess somewhere. The funniest one is the hippo whale common ancestor. There are a couple of contestants. You've found tiktaalik to have predating tetrapod footprints around, and you have many theories as to why you haven't found a nice gradual change (PEq) and lots of theories and presumptions about the fossil evidence. None of this is scientific evidence, I'm afraid.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Your researchers look at the same evidence and come up with different theories. Decending researchers obviously are not always satisfied with current 'common thing' and they are evos. So long as the theory supports a TOE perspective, it is OK with you. Isn't it? Go with the flow and flavour of the month in la la land.
New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories | e! Science News
Well, It's not OK with me.
Human Banana common ancestor. We share 50% genes.
Wofffle from IF...But how much does it take to distinguish one "kind" from another "kind". The differences between me and my brothers and very distinct, does this make us different "kinds"? What about the differences between different breeds of wolves? Are they "distinct" enough to be deemed different "kinds"? By what method do we distinguish between "kinds", and by by what measure do we determine certain "kinds" to be distinct?
Been there...done that. All these are one kind the dog kind by whatever name you wish to call that 'kind'. You picked an easy one. I'm not going over it again with you, anyway. Definitions of kinds have been put up sufficiently for forum discussions. You do not have to like them. This is just one of them "99% SNP's" similarity comparisons is the same kind. Another is to use the Family of Sub family rank, whichever the lower, others use genus equivalents. Like I said been there ..done that..get over it!
How about showing us what you think was the common ancestor of modern birds to a flighless species? While your at it you can settle the half wing debate for your researchers whom are still arguing amongst themselves as to what good a half wing would be to have fixed in a population. You tell 'em what's what, about the true bird and whatever common ancestor and half wings.... and let us know!
Oh so you reckon you've found some common ancestors do you? I note no evidence to illustrate flavour of the month. What you have is 'common thinking', with equally credentialed researchers flapping around thinking different. So show us what you think the modern bird ancestor looks like, lovey. I wonder what you'll post and if it starts with...arch..!!!
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
Regardless, of what you put up I have been down most roads before. They all end up in a mess somewhere. The funniest one is the hippo whale common ancestor. There are a couple of contestants. You've found tiktaalik to have predating tetrapod footprints around, and you have many theories as to why you haven't found a nice gradual change (PEq) and lots of theories and presumptions about the fossil evidence. None of this is scientific evidence, I'm afraid.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Your researchers look at the same evidence and come up with different theories. Decending researchers obviously are not always satisfied with current 'common thing' and they are evos. So long as the theory supports a TOE perspective, it is OK with you. Isn't it? Go with the flow and flavour of the month in la la land.
New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories | e! Science News
Well, It's not OK with me.
Human Banana common ancestor. We share 50% genes.Wofffle from IF...But how much does it take to distinguish one "kind" from another "kind". The differences between me and my brothers and very distinct, does this make us different "kinds"? What about the differences between different breeds of wolves? Are they "distinct" enough to be deemed different "kinds"? By what method do we distinguish between "kinds", and by by what measure do we determine certain "kinds" to be distinct?
Been there...done that. All these are one kind the dog kind by whatever name you wish to call that 'kind'. You picked an easy one. I'm not going over it again with you, anyway. Definitions of kinds have been put up sufficiently for forum discussions. You do not have to like them. This is just one of them "99% SNP's" similarity comparisons is the same kind. Another is to use the Family of Sub family rank, whichever the lower, others use genus equivalents. Like I said been there ..done that..get over it!
How about showing us what you think was the common ancestor of modern birds to a flighless species? While your at it you can settle the half wing debate for your researchers whom are still arguing amongst themselves as to what good a half wing would be to have fixed in a population. You tell 'em what's what, about the true bird and whatever common ancestor and half wings.... and let us know!
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Well, there are creationists who spew loads and loads of nonsense, praying on the ignorance of those whom they would convince, but other than that....
Oneatatime
Huh?
Creationist such as Newhope rely primarily on strawmen arguements whether or not they know it. This is mainly the reason why I give up debating with creationists because a subject cannot be debated effectively when one party does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to form or understand an informed arguement. One only need to look at Newhopes most recent post to see that Newhope doesn't understand what the measures of genetic similarity mean in their biological and evolutionary context.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Since DNA only codes for 22 different amino acids, that we would share so much in common with bananas shouldn't really surprise you.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
LoL... "what good is half a wing"... It's cute that argument still gets around.
Someone had best tell all those living birds with "half wings" that they shouldn't exist or use their "useless" wings for things like:
sexual display
thermoregulation
shading their offspring
and on and on.
Such evolutionarily useless things "half wings" it's only "common sense" that wings are only good for flying.
wa:do
ps. thanks for the "50% banana" argument too... it's the exact same mistake you made with Tricoplax but it's still worth a chuckle. :jiggy:
Someone had best tell all those living birds with "half wings" that they shouldn't exist or use their "useless" wings for things like:
sexual display
thermoregulation
shading their offspring
and on and on.
Such evolutionarily useless things "half wings" it's only "common sense" that wings are only good for flying.
wa:do
ps. thanks for the "50% banana" argument too... it's the exact same mistake you made with Tricoplax but it's still worth a chuckle. :jiggy:
Last edited: