-
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!
so you believe....?
- Thread starter BIG D
- Start date
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
I believe that Creationists should be burnt at the stake, but that's a little harsh. There is truly no "Word of God." We do not have ears to hear such a thing, what we hear in our minds is interpretation.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Nope... but I'm not a scriptural literalist, I'm a biologist who also happens to be a theist.
wa:do
wa:do
Well, I'm not a Creationist but if there wasn't enough evidence to sway me toward evolution, I really wouldn't have a problem with the idea that God created man fully formed.
Seriously, the fact that the universe exists at all is already ridiculous, far-fetched and amazing.
Seriously, the fact that the universe exists at all is already ridiculous, far-fetched and amazing.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
No a fully developed man didn't "just appear", they were created from the dust of the ground by God's hand.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Had to showboat with theatrics, did he? Not sure how it's relevant regarding the question, though.
NeverGotBetter
Member
If humans were created from dust by god, then when they die do they become dust by god's hand? If not, why?
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth were created.
What is so cool about that line? What happened to the old account, where "god created man in his image?" One or the other, I'm saying. Creationists wanna argue about being god's image, they didn't come from Adam, did they? A god that uses blueprints, like his image, his breath, and dust; sounds more like an Engineer than a Creator, no? Is there an Engineer that rejects science?
I'm a created evolutionist. All things come from god, all things return to god. No big deal.
so what are you saying?a fully developed human was made by god??..so, the human just formed out of the dust???fully developed???
NeverGotBetter
Member
Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth were created.
What is so cool about that line? What happened to the old account, where "god created man in his image?" One or the other, I'm saying. Creationists wanna argue about being god's image, they didn't come from Adam, did they? A god that uses blueprints, like his image, his breath, and dust; sounds more like an Engineer than a Creator, no? Is there an Engineer that rejects science?
I'm a created evolutionist. All things come from god, all things return to god. No big deal.
This is to both of you: if a fully (note that word, fully) developed human being came from the dust via god's intervention, how do you account for the stages in embryonic and fetal development whereby the human lacks a vertebral column? Instead, there's a notochord and "gill" slits with all this being similar across other vertebrate organisms. That is, why do humans in their development show a similar or identical stage as, say, a chicken?
Also to both of you: Second, looking across various organisms, it's evident certain parts were consistently used to form different components of different organisms. That is, part of reptiles that wasn't the ear becomes the inner ear in humans. How do you account for this if humans are made from the dust by god as a fully formed functional human being? This also applies to all other patterns seen across comparative vertebrate evolution, such as apical ectodermal ridge for upper limb development. The same deficits in that area during development can make a reptile into a snake and a human with arms to a human without all their arms (or just a hand or not a hand).