Breeders? No. Gene splicing? Yes.
I thought that was the same thing, but maybe you're talking about coloning. Like what they did in Jurassic Park where they brought back the dinosaurs.
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Breeders? No. Gene splicing? Yes.
So, now what you're basically saying is that you do not believe in the theory of evolution.
Gene splicing is medically or biologically altering the actual genes of a species to achieve something different.I thought that was the same thing, but maybe you're talking about coloning. Like what they did in Jurassic Park where they brought back the dinosaurs.
But that's what the Theory of Evolution claims. That we are here because we evolved over time from lower primates.No. I'm not saying that all. I'm saying that I believe that our ancestors resembled monkeys, but never actually were. That's the difference.
Not sure what you mean by exactly since no two of us look exactly alike. Even clinically identical twins don't look exactly alike.I see what you're saying about the genes now but you and a lot of other people still seem to be missing my point. I'm saying that there's a possibility that Adam and Eve just looked like prehistoric human beings because what proof do you or anybody else have that we look exactly (and I do mean exactly) the way we did over two thousand years ago even before Christ was born? I would also like to hear KevinK chime in on this one for a bit more of his insight.
Not sure what you mean by exactly since no two of us look exactly alike. Even clinically identical twins don't look exactly alike.
What does a prehistoric human look like?
Natural selection accounts for how we have variety within our species such as skin color, eye color, hair color, tall, short, thin, heavy, and so on but we are still the same species.
What did a caveman look like? There were many people that lived in caves during Biblical times. There is mention of cave dwellers in the Old Testament. I think King David spent some time in one. There are people that live in caves yet today.Prehistoric human=caveman.
What did a caveman look like? There were many people that lived in caves during Biblical times. There is mention of cave dwellers in the Old Testament. I think King David spent some time in one. There are people that live in caves yet today.
That's right.Like this,...
LOL!!! JK :tongue I think that was my whole point is that we weren't really sure what humans looked like back then.
That's right.
Well, I think here is a situation where science and Scripture agree. I don't see that the first people would look substantially different than we do now. It's just been too short a time.I see what you're saying about the genes now but you and a lot of other people still seem to be missing my point. I'm saying that there's a possibility that Adam and Eve just looked like prehistoric human beings because what proof do you or anybody else have that we look exactly (and I do mean exactly) the way we did over two thousand years ago even before Christ was born? I would also like to hear KevinK chime in on this one for a bit more of his insight.
WIP already explained it in detail, but to say it another way: natural selection is one possible way by which some people (Darwinists) believe evolution occurs. (There are other possible mechanisms, for example Intelligent Design.)I agree, but I'm not really sure what natural selection is.
Here's another angle. If we accept the Evolutionary Theory then the earliest humans were microbes that looked very much like the photo below.
View attachment 8497
Yes, but the Theory of Evolution says we started as microbes billions of years ago and slowly evolved into what we are today. Do you honestly think that is what God did?Even if you don't accept the theory of evolution, I looked up what microbes were and it's basically like bacteria and so we all have it in our bodies anyways.
Whoa there, those ancestral single-cell organisms were not human, early or otherwise. Human = member of genus Homo. Modern human is the species Homo sapien.Here's another angle. If we accept the Evolutionary Theory then the earliest humans were microbes that looked very much like the photo below.