[_ Old Earth _] Man evolving from apes

[VaultZero4Me]

Please get over it.
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.

I have no problem with science, but evolution,(as in man evolving from apes) is not science. It is a hobby that only exists in the mind of the evolutionary scientist.

I agree. The theory of evolution is of the devil. Our ancestors were created in the image of the lord, from dust, he breathed life into our ancestors. From then on, is history. To entertain such a notion, that we evolved from monkies or chimpanzees is blasphemy/mockery of the lord.

Pagan religions worship animals and so-called scientists claim chimps have dna 95% similar to our own or so. If we were created in the lord's image, then he cannot possibly be a Jesus is Lord of all throwing, parasite infested, urine drinking animal. anything else is of the evil one.

Well we have to decide 2 things for this debate:

1. Is it going to stick to science, or are we going to broaden it into scriptural and theological debate. (or vice versa)

I suggest we pick one aspect and stay on that topic, because we can spin our wheels when it gets to broad.

2. In either case, are we going to call foul when we see no evidence for either?

As in the case above. We see a view stated, yet no scripture is really brought forth to support the view. Are we going to accept this, or narrow it to responses built from evidence? (note* Archetype, I mean no harm, I used yours as an example only. Previous posters had posted without evidence as well. I just wanted to get it clear from hear forward.)

Again, these tend to be loose debates, and I am fine with being lax on evidence. I do however suggest that we require at least part of the posts to focus on evidence, as this can help prevent it from turning into a dust kicking match.

 

[Archetype]

VaultZero4Me,

What kind of evidence do you want? I am only going to use/cite scripture. If thats not up to your standards then I am afraid I have to drop out.

I can argue science and scientific obersvations/data( I have a BSEE from Purdue), but when matters conflict with my faith, I will always defer to my faith-whats in scripture.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re-read my post.

That is what I was asking. Do we want to make it a scriptural debate, scientific debate, or both?

I am fine with any of those, but we have to keep in mind that the broader we get, the less traction can be made for either side.

But, if theological evidence is presented against or for, the verses should be cited. Or at least referenced. Same goes with science evidence.

I can accept scripture if we come to agreement to open the scope to include it as well.

 

[Archetype]

I don't think its going to be meaningful. i'll quote hundreds of passages in scripture in support of man created in gods image. You'll quote all the latest journals/articles and research on evolution. I cannot debate this and cannot possibly fathom humans emerging from a monkey or some ape-like creature. I am going to have to disagree respectfully and drop out.

 

[love2live]

I don't think its going to be meaningful. i'll quote hundreds of passages in scripture in support of man created in gods image. You'll quote all the latest journals/articles and research on evolution. I cannot debate this and cannot possibly fathom humans emerging from a monkey or some ape-like creature. I am going to have to disagree respectfully and drop out.

Well, I would also have to respectfully disagree and mention that God did not create us in his PHYSICAL image, but in his spiritual image.
1. God has never taken a physical form according to my knowledge, except maybe when he was speaking to Moses from the burning bush, but then again, we're nothing like a bush. How can we even consider that God looks like us physically?
2. Our body, made of flesh, is nothing more than a vessel on earth. By nature it's imperfect, yet God is quite perfect, so if he created our bodies in his physical image then he must be imperfect.
3. The only other thing is to consider that God created us in his spiritual image, which seems to be more reasonable.

Here is some more information about why we are not created in God's physical image:
"Yes, the human body is an incredible wonder! Yet was it the body that God created in His own image? No! This cannot be, because God is spirit. God did not create the physical form of man in His own image. What then does the Scripture mean when it tells us that "God created man in His own image?" It means that God created the soul of man in His image." (http://www.injil.org/TWOR/05.html)

Chimps look much like us, very similar looking animals (image ways), but what distinguishes us from them is a SOUL. That is the similarity between us and God: the SOUL, not our physical image.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

love2live,

Well thought out posting.

 

[Archetype]

Well, I would also have to respectfully disagree and mention that God did not create us in his PHYSICAL image, but in his spiritual image.
1. God has never taken a physical form according to my knowledge, except maybe when he was speaking to Moses from the burning bush, but then again, we're nothing like a bush. How can we even consider that God looks like us physically?

I don't see how you can say that, when the lord jesus christ came into this world in his physical human form, born of the virgin mary. Therefore god did come as a human and assumed his human form, sent from the holy father. makes perfect sense therefore god was human, unless you deny christ-which non-christians do. why else would lord assume the body of a human? because he is human in spiritual and physical form.

2. Our body, made of flesh, is nothing more than a vessel on earth. By nature it's imperfect, yet God is quite perfect, so if he created our bodies in his physical image then he must be imperfect.

That's a lie! By that rationale, the lord assummed a human body and is imperfect. The lord, jesus, lived and died and was raised w/o sin, therefore he and his body are perfect. it is us humans who were born sinners at the moment of conception who are imperfect, but the lord is not. the lord is referred to as the "son of man", and was sent to us by the holy father (not the holy monkey), whose image, we take on as man.

3. The only other thing is to consider that God created us in his spiritual image, which seems to be more reasonable.

The lord is spirit(for lack of better terms so we humans can comprehend). However, scripture refers to the lord in the masculine sense at all times( scripture reconizes the lord in masculine form), not as a woman or a monkey. christ is the holy son, a human being and a spiritual being. The human body is his natural form, the spirit, his super-natural form, both are human in the image of the creator, the holy father. the holy father created our ancestors in "their" image-humans. gen 1: 26

Here is some more information about why we are not created in God's physical image:
"Yes, the human body is an incredible wonder! Yet was it the body that God created in His own image? No! This cannot be, because God is spirit. God did not create the physical form of man in His own image. What then does the Scripture mean when it tells us that "God created man in His own image?" It means that God created the soul of man in His image." (http://www.injil.org/TWOR/05.html)

This is blasphemy-reread genesis 1:26. Anything outside of scripture is of the antichrist and is garbage. the lord fashioned our body in is image and gave us a divine spark which made us human beings.

Chimps look much like us, very similar looking animals (image ways), but what distinguishes us from them is a SOUL. That is the similarity between us and God: the SOUL, not our physical image.

More blasphemy. I caution you on preaching a false gospel. Chimps are nothing like us. They walk on their four limbs, throw their own stools, eat fleas off each other's backs and drink their own urine. Plus the lord gave us dominion over them. The apes cannot possibly be our cousins or relations. and we wouldn't presume what is the mind of an ape.

I should caution you, that if you believe that the lord is a monkey, then by those standards you will be judged by a monkey. This cannot be. you will be judged by a masculine supernatural being. we are natural human beings, when the lord gathers his elect(hopefully us) we will rise to heaven and be given our supernatural bodies, still in the lord's image.

 

[Dunzo]

More blasphemy. I caution you on preaching a false gospel. Chimps are nothing like us. They walk on their four limbs, throw their own stools, eat fleas off each other's backs and drink their own urine. Plus the lord gave us dominion over them. The apes cannot possibly be our cousins or relations. and we wouldn't presume what is the mind of an ape.

And nevermind that human and chimpanzee DNA is something like 96% similar, which is very indicative of common ancestry.

 

[Archetype]

gorilla

Oh yeah thats REAL human. If you continue to lie, I will charge you with willfully preaching a false gospel.

 

[Dunzo]

gorilla

Oh yeah thats REAL human. If you continue to lie, I will charge you with willfully preaching a false gospel.

You can go ahead and do that. It disturbs me that you'd send me to hell for something like this.
Can you not see the resemblance here? Gorillas are still awfully similar to humans.

 

[Archetype]

gorilla

Oh yeah thats REAL human. If you continue to lie, I will charge you with willfully preaching a false gospel.

You can go ahead and do that.
Can you not see the resemblance here? Gorillas are still awfully similar to humans.

How does a gorilla resemble us? My chihuahua walks on is hind legs, that doesnt make him human.

Are you christian? Do you confess in the son, Jesus is the christ?

 

[Dunzo]

That's how humans and gorillas are similar.

And no I am not a christian, but what difference does it make?

 

[Archetype]

... And no I am not a christian, but what difference does it make?

Oh thank goodness. I thought you were a heretic christian. scientologists or the illuminatti or something.

Yeah, this is a christian forum, read the rules. the reason why i asked is because i cannot convince a filthy heathen with the gospel, heathens do not regard scripture as holy. therefore i cannot feed what is holy to dogs. and you cannot possibly comprehend this because you are of the antichrist and are doomed to hell, unless you convert to christianity and repent.

so it makes sense that you utter these lies and deceptions. I now offically charge you with preaching a false gospel. this is your first warning, you have been warned.

 

[Jayls5]

... And no I am not a christian, but what difference does it make?

Oh thank goodness. I thought you were a heretic christian. scientologists or the illuminatti or something.

Yeah, this is a christian forum, read the rules. the reason why i asked is because i cannot convince a filthy heathen with the gospel, heathens do not regard scripture as holy. therefore i cannot feed what is holy to dogs. and you cannot possibly comprehend this because you are of the antichrist and are doomed to hell, unless you convert to christianity and repent.

so it makes sense that you utter these lies and deceptions. I now offically charge you with preaching a false gospel. this is your first warning, you have been warned.

In the world of logic, we call this method "ad hominem abusive." It's a logical fallacy that does not address the argument at hand. Instead, it attacks the source of the argument. It does not detract from the legitimacy of the argument the individual makes.

 

[Archetype]

I knew this was going to happen. :crazyeyes:

This conversation is about faith, not logic, which will be shown to be worse than the lord's foolishness, or reasoning. Yes i attacked him, because the faithful christian would understand. The heathens could not possibly understand along side with that, christ "reveals his message to whom he pleases." a heathen will never be able to comprehend it, unless he his transformed to christianity, thru the grace of the holy spirit.

Thats why I told him I couldn't quote anything outside of scripture or any so-called science scholar and bible scholars/pharisees. The argument would have to remain strictly scripture. He brought in #$%^ about an ape walking on his hind legs, clearly we all agreed that the conversation would be limited to scripture or at least I assumed it. obviously the christ hating atheists/antichrists didn't want that.

One individual claimed that god never assumed human form, i defeated it by saying then who is christ? then he tried to say thatif god did assume human form, then he would be imperfect, which again is false.

Christ was flesh and blood like you and me, except that he was w/o sin, christ was incapable of sinning. although, since he is god, he can sin if he wanted to, but he always remained faithful to the lord and called on the holy spirit, he is the son of god, through and through.

scientists say we belong to the ape class. since we have opposable thumbs, no tails( at least prehensible ones like monkeys), hair, warm blood and whatnot. but in the book of genesis, it clearly states that the lord created our ancestors, adam and then eve, in his image. therefore the story of creationism holds credence in the origin of humans by a supernatural human being, the one most high and not a monkey or talking frog.

now we are not talking about mutations in the genome sequence or animals selectively breeding in the ecosystems. there is also no direct link between the ape, man and the neanderthal to suggest otherwise. clearly, man was created from the divine spirit and is given dominion over all things on earth. I sincerely don't think any self-professing christian would be believe otherwise.

with that said, I can only argue scripture. i am not concerned with or will quote #$%^ from the likes of richard dawkins et al. that man clearly worships the devil.

 

[love2live]

I knew this was going to happen. :crazyeyes:

This conversation is about faith, not logic, which will be shown to be worse than the lord's foolishness, or reasoning. Yes i attacked him, because the faithful christian would understand. The heathens could not possibly understand along side with that, christ "reveals his message to whom he pleases." a heathen will never be able to comprehend it, unless he his transformed to christianity, thru the grace of the holy spirit.

Maybe this is the reason he's not a faithful Christian? Maybe you attacking him makes him want to be that much less of a Christian!
You see, you label him a heathen, thus you render him less than you! Well you are NOT the judge, and we are all created equal... Some stray off the path of "righteousness", but they are no less of a human than you are!

Thats why I told him I couldn't quote anything outside of scripture or any so-called science scholar and bible scholars/pharisees. The argument would have to remain strictly scripture. He brought in #$%^ about an ape walking on his hind legs, clearly we all agreed that the conversation would be limited to scripture or at least I assumed it. obviously the christ hating atheists/antichrists didn't want that.

If you don't understand science then don't argue Evolution... if he doesn't understand the Bible then he's not going to argue theology! It's that simple!

One individual claimed that god never assumed human form, i defeated it by saying then who is christ? then he tried to say thatif god did assume human form, then he would be imperfect, which again is false.

I said that, and I believe it is true. Christ is God's son... there is a difference there.

Christ was flesh and blood like you and me, except that he was w/o sin, christ was incapable of sinning. although, since he is god, he can sin if he wanted to, but he always remained faithful to the lord and called on the holy spirit, he is the son of god, through and through.

He's very close to God, but note that there are 81 references to "The Son of Man" in the Gospel (referring to Christ), a bunch of references calling him "The Son of God" and only 3 references refer to him as God, only one of those 3 calls him God directly and all of those 3 references are in the New Testament.

scientists say we belong to the ape class. since we have opposable thumbs, no tails( at least prehensible ones like monkeys), hair, warm blood and whatnot. but in the book of genesis, it clearly states that the lord created our ancestors, adam and then eve, in his image. therefore the story of creationism holds credence in the origin of humans by a supernatural human being, the one most high and not a monkey or talking frog.

Are you arguing Science now? I thought that you are not going to do that?

now we are not talking about mutations in the genome sequence or animals selectively breeding in the ecosystems. there is also no direct link between the ape, man and the neanderthal to suggest otherwise. clearly, man was created from the divine spirit and is given dominion over all things on earth. I sincerely don't think any self-professing christian would be believe otherwise.

Science or Bible?
If you're talking about the Bible, man was created in God's image, but God is a spirit so the only similarity between us and God is in our spirit, and that happens to be the difference between us and animals. I can elaborate if you wish!

with that said, I can only argue scripture. i am not concerned with or will quote #$%^ from the likes of richard dawkins et al. that man clearly worships the devil.

Well let's stick to scripture... scripture alone will show you that the physical image of people is irrelevant when compared to God's image. It's pretty foolish to assume that God is a chubby white guy, with white hair and a big belly, wait, that's too much like Santa Clause... aargh!

 

[Dunzo]

It disturbs me that you're so easily willing to damn someone to eternal torment, Archetype. Not to mention you calling me a "filthy heathen" and comparing me to dogs.

Yeah, this is a christian forum, read the rules.

I don't remember reading that atheists aren't allowed to join discussions on christianity.

 

[Drew]

The heathens could not possibly understand along side with that, christ "reveals his message to whom he pleases." a heathen will never be able to comprehend it, unless he his transformed to christianity, thru the grace of the holy spirit.

I am not going to disagree with your point here, since I am not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to "his message". It is clear, though, that lots of things about God are indeed revealed to "the heathen" as Paul clearly teaches in this famous text from Romans 1:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The argument would have to remain strictly scripture. He brought in #$%^ about an ape walking on his hind legs, clearly we all agreed that the conversation would be limited to scripture or at least I assumed it. obviously the christ hating atheists/antichrists didn't want that.

We NEVER agreed to that. We did however agree to keep it civil and fact based. Something you show no obvious desire to do.

Your attacks remind me of someone saying “Infidel!†A dangerous mindset IMHO.

 

[Jayls5]

I knew this was going to happen. :crazyeyes:

This conversation is about faith, not logic, which will be shown to be worse than the lord's foolishness, or reasoning. Yes i attacked him, because the faithful christian would understand. The heathens could not possibly understand along side with that, christ "reveals his message to whom he pleases." a heathen will never be able to comprehend it, unless he his transformed to christianity, thru the grace of the holy spirit.

Thats why I told him I couldn't quote anything outside of scripture or any so-called science scholar and bible scholars/pharisees. The argument would have to remain strictly scripture. He brought in #$%^ about an ape walking on his hind legs, clearly we all agreed that the conversation would be limited to scripture or at least I assumed it. obviously the christ hating atheists/antichrists didn't want that.

One individual claimed that god never assumed human form, i defeated it by saying then who is christ? then he tried to say thatif god did assume human form, then he would be imperfect, which again is false.

Christ was flesh and blood like you and me, except that he was w/o sin, christ was incapable of sinning. although, since he is god, he can sin if he wanted to, but he always remained faithful to the lord and called on the holy spirit, he is the son of god, through and through.

scientists say we belong to the ape class. since we have opposable thumbs, no tails( at least prehensible ones like monkeys), hair, warm blood and whatnot. but in the book of genesis, it clearly states that the lord created our ancestors, adam and then eve, in his image. therefore the story of creationism holds credence in the origin of humans by a supernatural human being, the one most high and not a monkey or talking frog.

now we are not talking about mutations in the genome sequence or animals selectively breeding in the ecosystems. there is also no direct link between the ape, man and the neanderthal to suggest otherwise. clearly, man was created from the divine spirit and is given dominion over all things on earth. I sincerely don't think any self-professing christian would be believe otherwise.

with that said, I can only argue scripture. i am not concerned with or will quote #$%^ from the likes of richard dawkins et al. that man clearly worships the devil.

Last time I checked, this is a Christianity AND Science forum.

If you only want to argue scripture only, then you should probably seek out a theology forum. This forum is for discussing science's relationship with Christianity, whether it be mutually exclusive or complementary (both cases can be made).

I liked your bible references. By the way, the bible clearly contradicts itself between the first and second books of genesis. First book: man made after animals. Second book: animals made after man.

Your tone clearly demonstrates a confrontational attitude. I urge you to be a little more "Christian" about it and stop the character attacks.