Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Thief]

Back to topic....I say....

The event in the garden is not evolution.
It's a manipulation.

Man did not evolve from ape.
God may tweak His creation any time He wants to.

 

[Sonofason]

That's usually the way it works with pit bulls, mountain lions, bears, and any other creature that kills people. Why are you surprised? You never watch the news or read a news feed?

Sorry, not of this world.

You see, when I think of a bear doing what is was born to do, behaving as naturally as it possibly can, I find it difficult to place a burden of guilt or a lack of innocence to it, simply for not conforming to human hopes and expectations.

I don't mind killing a bear that has just killed a son of mine, but it is not because the bear has done something wrong, or somehow deserves to die for it, but that I am angry for the loss of my son. I kill the bear out of anger, or fear that he may kill again, not because he's done something wrong.

I kill the bear not as a result of a problem the bear has, but a problem that I have.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, I see. Well I honestly gave one.

No, you did not give a method.

However, to the fact that you think that it is a method sheds considerable light on your deplorable knowledge of science and the scientific method.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I kill the bear not as a result of a problem the bear has, but a problem that I have.

"I don't know anything about science or biblical interpretation!"

BLAM!!

 

[Sonofason]

Back to topic....I say....

The event in the garden is not evolution.
It's a manipulation.

Man did not evolve from ape.
God may tweak His creation any time He wants to.

That the event in the garden was a manipulation is quite intriguing. Is it possible that such a manipulation might account for what biologists are calling fused Chromosomes?

God brought forth animals and all life it seems from either the oceans or the earth. It implies that animals were also formed from the dust, although the Bible doesn't specifically say that. Could it be that man was formed by the splicing of of the genes of some kind of primate which had previously been formed from the dust of the ground? Is that what you are hinting at?

What do you mean by a "manipulation"? Can you please explain?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I'm sorry, one must start with a hypothesis, and that's the hypothesis, that God exists.

No one must start with a question.

Does god exist?

Then you examine ALL THE EVIDENCE before coming to a conclusion.

Your methodology preassumes the conclusion then seeks to ONLY find evidence to support it, whilst deliberately rejecting any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Thief]

That the event in the garden was a manipulation is quite intriguing. Is it possible that such a manipulation might account for what biologists are calling fused Chromosomes?

God brought forth animals and all life it seems from either the oceans or the earth. It implies that animals were also formed from the dust, although the Bible doesn't specifically say that. Could it be that man was formed by the splicing of of the genes of some kind of primate which had previously been formed from the dust of the ground? Is that what you are hinting at?

What do you mean by a "manipulation"? Can you please explain?

God created Man ...Day Six.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply...dominate all things.
No names, no garden, no restrictions, no law.
Man as a species.

Day Seven.....rest.....and no more would be created.

Chapter Two is not a retelling of Chapter One.
It has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Selection of a specimen, isolated living conditions (petri dish)....
anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation, test and release.

Eve is a clone....not born.
Eve had no navel and would be Adam's twin sister.

It was done as Man would have overrun the earth and it's resources too quickly.
The spiritual quality is more difficult to cultivate from dust.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I'm sorry, one must start with a hypothesis, and that's the hypothesis, that God exists.

Question comes before hypothesis in the scientific method, so no, you start with the question: "Does God exist?"

 

[Thief]

Question comes before hypothesis in the scientific method, so no, you start with the question: "Does God exist?"

Different topic.....wrong thread......
and I say ..Yeah....

Spirit first?....or substance?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Man did not evolve from ape.

The genome says you're incorrect......

God may tweak His creation any time He wants to.

Then your god is imperfect not making his creation the way he wanted in the first place. Why would such an all knowing and all powerful god fail so miserably in something simple as creation..?

 

[Sonofason]

No, you did not give a method.

However, to the fact that you think that it is a method sheds considerable light on your deplorable knowledge of science and the scientific method.

Well, thanks. That is very kind. It's a rather snooty crowd anyhow. Surely, and thankfully, I wouldn't fit in.

 

[Sonofason]

"I don't know anything about science or biblical interpretation!"

BLAM!!

Haha, that's a good one. It completely lacks intellectual content, but it's very funny.

 

[Sonofason]

No one must start with a question.

Does god exist?

Then you examine ALL THE EVIDENCE before coming to a conclusion.

Your methodology preassumes the conclusion then seeks to ONLY find evidence to support it, whilst deliberately rejecting any evidence to the contrary.

Sir, the question is the hypothesis. You cannot study the hypothesis without first assuming it to be true. The experiment will lead to the conclusion. A hypothesis is not a conclusion by the way.

Never reject what you don't know is false.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Haha, that's a good one. It completely lacks intellectual content, but it's very funny.

Hey, when you're given lemons, make lemonade.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, thanks. That is very kind. It's a rather snooty crowd anyhow. Surely, and thankfully, I wouldn't fit in.

I was being kind. :foryou:

 

[Sonofason]

God created Man ...Day Six.
Go forth be fruitful and multiply...dominate all things.
No names, no garden, no restrictions, no law.
Man as a species.

Day Seven.....rest.....and no more would be created.

Chapter Two is not a retelling of Chapter One.
It has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Selection of a specimen, isolated living conditions (petri dish)....
anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation, test and release.

Eve is a clone....not born.
Eve had no navel and would be Adam's twin sister.

It was done as Man would have overrun the earth and it's resources too quickly.
The spiritual quality is more difficult to cultivate from dust.

I'm not really sold on this idea.

I have a problem. You see, many biologist/evolutionists claim that we (all living things), are genetically related. They claim that this conclusion is based on some kind of evidence showing that creatures of all sorts, including all plants share common DNA. I find this rather absurd, that with all of the biodiversity on this planet that life only formed once, and that everything evolved from that one single living thing. It's a complete farce. It's a complete lie. And you can be sure, where you find one lie, you will likely find several. It may be a conspiracy of sorts. Or it could be Satanic manipulation of either the evidence, or of the minds of scientists. But it just isn't true. It's highly likely that none of it is true.

It is becoming quite apparent to me that the only trustworthy source of knowledge is the Word of God.

I don't need to manipulate it in any way shape or form. It stands as truth word by word. I know if I don't understand it now, one day I will, because God is good, and God is just.

 

[Sonofason]

Question comes before hypothesis in the scientific method, so no, you start with the question: "Does God exist?"

Sorry, if you have a hypothesis, you don't need the question. The question is for those who don't have a clue what to look for.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is becoming quite apparent to me that the only trustworthy

It's unfortunate then that you have such contempt for it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sorry, if you have a hypothesis, you don't need the question. The question is for those who don't have a clue what to look for.

What's it like?

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not really sold on this idea.

I have a problem. You see, many biologist/evolutionists claim that we (all living things), are genetically related. They claim that this conclusion is based on some kind of evidence showing that creatures of all sorts, including all plants share common DNA. I find this rather absurd, that with all of the biodiversity on this planet that life only formed once, and that everything evolved from that one single living thing. It's a complete farce. It's a complete lie. And you can be sure, where you find one lie, you will likely find several. It may be a conspiracy of sorts. Or it could be Satanic manipulation of either the evidence, or of the minds of scientists. But it just isn't true. It's highly likely that none of it is true.

It is becoming quite apparent to me that the only trustworthy source of knowledge is the Word of God.

I don't need to manipulate it in any way shape or form. It stands as truth word by word. I know if I don't understand it now, one day I will, because God is good, and God is just.

So you say that you do not understand evolution, and do not understand the evidence - but state outright that it is absurd, false and a lie. All creatures DO share DNA in common - Why call something a lie, when you KNOW that you do not actually understand it, or the evidence for it?

All creatures do have DNA in common, why deny it?

It means that anything you say about god can be dismissed - you make it clear that you do not care if what you say is true or not.