Did manking evolve from other primates, or By Creation by God?

[agedman]

Read what I wrote. God is not a thing.

I didn't say that He was.

What I was posting is that just because "In the beginning" records the formation of this current earth, it has no bearing on previous ones or even left over particles from other creative work.

God did not start "In the beginning" for He is the "I Am." Therefore the only "In the beginning" the beginning can refer is that which pertains specifically to this creative act of the current heavens and earth.

That does not discount any previous creative work or even any particles leftover particles and formations from that previous work.

Only the earth was without form and void. Why?

Darkness - no sunlight or stars. Why

Each of these are not in character with God nor how God creates according to the balance of Scriptures.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

After reading of Thallophyres and Cyptogams, I have decided that's hogwash.

How could a complicated reproductive system just elvolve ? I thought evolution made things more efficient, yet seems the higher the life-form, the less efficient the method of reproduction.

There is no way male and female just happened. The emotions could not have just evolved. They are a gift.

 

[freeatlast]

I didn't say that He was.

What I was posting is that just because "In the beginning" records the formation of this current earth, it has no bearing on previous ones or even left over particles from other creative work.

God did not start "In the beginning" for He is the "I Am." Therefore the only "In the beginning" the beginning can refer is that which pertains specifically to this creative act of the current heavens and earth.

That does not discount any previous creative work or even any particles leftover particles and formations from that previous work.

Only the earth was without form and void. Why?

Darkness - no sunlight or stars. Why

Each of these are not in character with God nor how God creates according to the balance of Scriptures.

Yes it does discount anything previous. The first day means first day, not one of others past.

 

[agedman]

Yes it does discount anything previous. The first day means first day, not one of others past.

Did the "I Am" portray none of His wonderful attributes until "in the beginning?"

Was there was no heaven, no angels, no throne, just the trinity in communion with each other before "in the beginning?"

 

[freeatlast]

Did the "I Am" portray none of His wonderful attributes until "in the beginning?"

Was there was no heaven, no angels, no throne, just the trinity in communion with each other before "in the beginning?"

If you remember there are three heavens according to scripture 2Cor 12:2
The first is the heaven above us with the atmosphere we breath and where the birds fly. The second is the space above the earth or the universe and all that it contains and the third is the spiritual realm. What the bible calls the creation that He created is the first and second heavens. The third was not part of the temporal creation as it is spiritual. As to angles they were already around at the biblical creation based on Job 38:4-7, but how long before we do not know. And finally about His throne I think people think of some big chair, but God is spirit so I doubt He has a need to literally set.
So the spiritual realm was where the spiritual realm is prior to what the bible calls creation, but the temporal realm was created as the account describes with no prior temporal creation. That is why it says in the beginning. So the beginning of the temporal and all that is in it, the entire universe, which took place about 6000 years ago is what scripture is speaking and is the beginning as far as the temporal creation is concerned and the account that we have.

 

[Alcott]

Who are you to limit God to how he does anything?

He is no one to do that. Who are you to do it?
To possibly save a superfluous question and answer=> Yes or No: is the literal scriptural narration of how God created the earth and everything in it a possibility? Or do you thereby "limit him?"

 

[Magnetic Poles]

He is no one to do that. Who are you to do it?
To possibly save a superfluous question and answer=> Yes or No: is the literal scriptural narration of how God created the earth and everything in it a possibility? Or do you thereby "limit him?"

Sure he could have. But the evidence demonstrates that he did not.

 

[quantumfaith]

Who are you to limit God to how he does anything?

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Alcott]

Sure he could have. But the evidence demonstrates that he did not.

Does the evidence demonstrate that he even exists to do anything at all?

 

[glazer1972]

God created us.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MP: I see that you are in the business of advertising, a manager no less. That puts everything you say in proper perspective.

As marketing and advertising products and services is a core part of American capitalism, I am surprised to see you using that to malign me. I though you were pro-capitalism. Guess not. There might be less advertising in a communist economy, which would probably suit you better.

 

[Oldtimer]

I also understand it is uncomfortable for some to have their sacred cows slaughtered. But I would rather understand how things really work rather than cling to some dogmatic view written down in a time when people would think you were a witch for being able to strike a match and create fire.

"I also understand it is uncomfortable for some to have their sacred cows slaughtered."

"But I would rather understand" the truth "rather than cling to some" theory with a foundation that has been seriously challenged by advances in true science. "in a time when people" were taught that a series of similar shaped embryros proved the evolution process.

Fraud rediscovered ( http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered )

It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.

----------
Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.3

Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.4
----------
(Reader comments following the indepth article linked above.)
I have taught Jr. High Science for over 35 years. Every textbook from every major publisher I have ever seen has had Haeckel’s embryos pictured and the text usually claims this as a proof for evolution. The other proofs given are also ones that have been disproved long ago; such as Miller’s experiment, and the beaks of finches.

-----------
Not only are these convenient mistruths in textbooks but students are examined on them.

2009 Year 10 Term 4 Science exam at one independent Sydney girls’ high school showed Haeckel’s drawings and asked students to explain how they supported the theory of evolution. (3 marks) I am interested in the Science HOD’s response to my query about this matter.

And the reader comment that touched me the most. This is exactly what happened to me. Why I tried to reconcile God's word with what I was being taught. ie the origin of the belief I once held - theistic evolution.

To quote from my Biology professor in 1986 as he showed the drawings on an overhead projector, "See. here's the best proof of Evolution right here." I left class that day doubting my faith, but compromised, and concluded, based on that fraudulent information, that God used evolution. I can't tell you how angry I became years later when I learned this "proof of Evolution" was a fake, and that I had compromised my faith because of it.

Yes, some cling to their sacred cows even when fraud is exposed, fake are identified (some of the so-called missing links) and when there are alternative explanations for specifics being promoted as "facts".

I'm sure some people were uncomfortable when they held on to their dogmatic view that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Those sacred cows of that day's science crumbled, just as some of the tenents of "evolution" are falling today. Just as the "science" of global warming, now evolved into climate change is failing due to flaws and possible deceptions by the "experts" (I won't use scientist) in the field.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Did the "I Am" portray none of His wonderful attributes until "in the beginning?"

Was there was no heaven, no angels, no throne, just the trinity in communion with each other before "in the beginning?"

Not knowing the mind of God makes any thoughts about what God did before creating the world and everything else just speculation. The words in the King James are, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." So, what is included in the words "the heaven".

He could have been creating things in deep space that mankind has yet to discover--just for His own enjoyment. Scientists are constantly discovering new planets and other things that are in deep space. As far as we know, space is endless, and God has an endless canvas on which to create His masterpieces.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

With Regard to the initial question of the thread...No serious student of Genesis or the Scriptures could, I think, believe the Bible could possibly convey the idea that man is, in any way, "evolved" from any lower life forms. Most of us gloss past the creative account without serious study. Man was not only...CREATED in the image of God, but he was also MADE in the image of God. They are BOTH true, and they both tell us so much about the uniqueness of not only WHO...but also WHAT man is.....We are so guilty in this day and age of failing to understand the totality of what God has to teach us about the doctrine of man.

Animals, even the higher primates were given the breath of life...but GOD breathed it into man personally.....he formed him separately from the other beasts...he MADE them differently.

No serious student of the Scriptures can, with real understanding, believe for a minute that the Bible leaves room for thinking that man could have evolved from the lower animals.

Already knowing that someone will say something like:
"Who are we to tell God what methods he could have used to make man?"

I supply the answer here:

No one...we have no right to do so, but that isn't the question. The question is: Who are we to believe something OTHER than what he has already TOLD us about what methods he DID, in fact, use?

 

[freeatlast]

With Regard to the initial question of the thread...No serious student of Genesis or the Scriptures could, I think, believe the Bible could possibly convey the idea that man is, in any way, "evolved" from any lower life forms. Most of us gloss past the creative account without serious study. Man was not only...CREATED in the image of God, but he was also MADE in the image of God. They are BOTH true, and they both tell us so much about the uniqueness of not only WHO...but also WHAT man is.....We are so guilty in this day and age of failing to understand the totality of what God has to teach us about the doctrine of man.

Animals, even the higher primates were given the breath of life...but GOD breathed it into man personally.....he formed him separately from the other beasts...he MADE them differently.

No serious student of the Scriptures can, with real understanding, believe for a minute that the Bible leaves room for thinking that man could have evolved from the lower animals.

Already knowing that someone will say something like:
"Who are we to tell God what methods he could have used to make man?"

I supply the answer here:

No one...we have no right to do so, but that isn't the question. The question is: Who are we to believe something OTHER than what he has already TOLD us about what methods he DID, in fact, use?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact that science incorporates new evidence and refines previous conclusions is it's greatest strength. It is self-correcting. Nothing is sacred, no conclusion is outside the realm of new evidence, unlike dogmatic belief.

If you think God said something, and it is proven wrong, does it mean God lied? There are other possibilities, including the fact that you may have been in error in your interpretation or understanding.

The Bible reflects an ancient understanding of the cosmos, beginning with the sky being a solid dome, a firmament, which holds back the waters above and releases it as rain by opening floodgates. Science has disproven that ancient view, that would be reasonable from a bronze-age level of knowledge.

We know that mental illness is caused by any number of physiological and biological problems, and not by invisible "demons" taking possession of a person. We know that disease is caused by microbes, not by our sins or those of our ancestors. Knowledge advances. Dogma does not.

Therefore the story is not literally true. One should not idolize written words. If one truly believes that God created all, then there are clues in that creation that are as much his "words" as anything in a book.

If one rejects science, then the rational view would be to reject medical treatment for disease. To not immunize our children and grandchildren.

To adhere to ancient fables as fact makes the church irrelevant as we discover facts about our amazing universe. It dilutes any other message it may have if it clings to disproven tales as prerequisite for anything else. If people see it wrong on how things work, why should they trust anything it has to say?

you see to be a holder to the old german critical school, that would hold to a God as being "perhaps' the Creator, but hold to a non/anti supernatural bias, a closed world view!

Would you hold to jesus being God Incarnate, that demons/miracle really happned, and that jesus physical body rose from the dead?

 

[Alcott]

Originally Posted by Magnetic Poles
Sure he could have. But the evidence demonstrates that he did not.

Does the evidence demonstrate that he even exists to do anything at all?

It's been a week, and I didn't think he would answer that.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

My theological views of these matters are neither germaine nor relevant to the topic.

 

[Yeshua1]

My theological views of these matters are neither germaine nor relevant to the topic.

They would be, as they give a hint on your theologocal bent, your 'world view!"

 

[Alcott]

My theological views of these matters are neither germaine nor relevant to the topic.

If the topic is Did mankind evolve from other primates, or By Creation by God? , and you so clearly state that you must believe scientific evidence, and if such does not support a literal reading of scripture then you believe scripture must be seen as not literal, then it is entirely relevant and germaine to ask if scientific evidence supports the existence of a divine being to 'do' anything at all. In particular it is when you had just stated "the evidence demonstrates that he did not." You were talking what evidence demonstrates in relation to God.