Did God use evolution to create life

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

By the way Gary; you keep posting, but have you worked up the nerve to try and answer that "horse/donkey/mule" question yet? You brought up the question in the first place with your assertions about "kinds."

How about answering some questions?

horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.

the mother of all living

that means that Eve herself did not have a mother or else she would not have been the mother of ALL living.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BroGary

the mother of all living

that means that Eve herself did not have a mother or else she would not have been the mother of ALL living.

But she wasn't the mother of Adam was she. So she was not the Mother of one living person. Did the bible get this wrong or is it just not literal?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.

Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.

I read the article. Coadie and BroGary actually do have a bit of a point about that article... It actually seems to go against the notion of a single breeding pair.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah. Good point. Eve is the mother of the slime molds and pond scum? She's the mother of ALL living? She's the mother of elephants and kangaroos according to coadie's interpretation. coadie takes "devolution" further than even did Devo did.

Don't try and and "interpret" this passage either. Just read it and believe!

Strawman

When you start making stuff up, you call the bible a lie.

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

When you claim man had ape progenitors and creation was from a common ancester, you tell us this is a lie.:

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Man was made in the Image of God. The new testament shows geneology back to Adam and God. Not monkees.

One of the disturbing patterns of atheists/evolutionists is that they twist scripture and create strawman arguments to refute. The word says Eve was the mother of all living. It also says animals, plants etc created offspring after their own kind. By twisting the Word they despise, they create strawman arguments to refute.
God's Word mentions Adam and Eve begat Seth, Cain and Abel.


breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls.



The bible twisting atheists/evolutionists practicing twisting the Word and creating false arguments. Darwin tried to create a materilistic model of Creation.

I am very familiar with Sigmund Freud who tried to create a model of man without a soul, sin and other biblical elements.

[pelathais]

Also, I never claimed "wiki supports the Bible." Try to get your train of thought back on track. I merely used Wikipedia because it's handy in a forum like this. The article itself does give evidence that a proper interpretation of Genesis is NOT at variance with the Bible's message.

Whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation "supports the Bible," you'll have to ask them.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

Strawman

When you start making stuff up, you call the bible a lie.

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

When you claim man had ape progenitors and creation was from a common ancester, you tell us this is a lie.:



Man was made in the Image of God. The new testament shows geneology back to Adam and God. Not monkees.

One of the disturbing patterns of atheists/evolutionists is that they twist scripture and create strawman arguments to refute. The word says Eve was the mother of all living. It also says animals, plants etc created offspring after their own kind. By twisting the Word they despise, they create strawman arguments to refute.
God's Word mentions Adam and Eve begat Seth, Cain and Abel.


breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls.



The bible twisting atheists/evolutionists practicing twisting the Word and creating false arguments. Darwin tried to create a materilistic model of Creation.

I am very familiar with Sigmund Freud who tried to create a model of man without a soul, sin and other biblical elements.

In Genesis 1:30 God says that animals have life. Looks like your definition that the bible only calls men living is flawed...

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I read the article. Coadie and BroGary actually do have a bit of a point about that article... It actually seems to go against the notion of a single breeding pair.

like 40,000 years appart?
That Wiki article has many of statements that directly clash with the bible.

The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents

I have never met an evolutionist that did not deny the Noahs flood as written in the bible.

We have 2 parents, 3 children and three duaghters in law.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.

Then why do the horse/donkey hybridization produce infertile offspring? If they were the same species or "kind" - the Bible says that they should continue to produce "after their kind." Genesis 1:25.

It's because of a phenomena involving "Genetic Drift." The ancestors of the donkeys lived and reproduced in geographic isolation for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the ancestors of the horses did the same.

Though both species shared a common ancestor, they "drifted apart" genetically to the point that they could no longer produce fertile offspring when they were brought back together. This is an example of evolution "in the works." If human beings had not transported the two species back into proximity with one another and cross bred them they would have continued to drift even further apart.

Since they are unable to produce fertile offspring (though there is the occasional and very, very rare fertile mule) the process of speciation between horses and donkeys may already be permanent. They have evolved into two different "kinds" that produce offspring "after their own kind" now.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by jfrog

But she wasn't the mother of Adam was she. So she was not the Mother of one living person. Did the bible get this wrong or is it just not literal?

To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.