An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[TheDayTheDollarDies]

The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)

Mostly folklore of the jewish people...at best the recent history of middle east and north africa...and greco-romans. It cannot be qualify for serious inquiry worse a scientific inquisition.

Heck the bible cannot even qualify for history lesson in a history class.

It's history and the future recorded by the prophets. That in itself is powerful. I've had dreams about prophets. I spoke to them in my dreams. We'd chat about seasons.

Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.

KD, you're really stretching this. So if Adam was the first man - having evolved from a whatever, from whom did eve evolve?

[Kababe]

We don't have multiple definitions of MAN in the scriptures.
Adam was a MAN, Enock was a man, Abraham was a man, Jesus was a man,vooke is a man

Now Evilution tells you that MAN has been around for at least 200,000 years. if Adam was the FIRST MAN, Adam must have been around for not later than 200,000 years ago. Is this sound logical conclusion?

So you have two problems;
1. Fitting Biblical history (not more than 10,000 years by ANY stretch of imagination) of man into 200,000 years of Evilution
2. Explaining how Adam the FIRST MAN brought about your 'original sin' seeing there must have been thousands/millions of his kind BEFORE him necessary for begetting him and evolving him into God's image which was then breathed into becoming a living spirit

I asked because we have a discrepancy on what "the first man" was. To me, whatever homos may have existed, they were not the same thing as Adam, who I consider "first man".

That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.

[Kababe]

The bible is in line with scientific inquisition.
You forgot that Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists/atheists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possibility. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)

Amen, Amen and Amen!!! That is my approach as well. God is everywhere and in everything and nothing was made except through him, by him, for him, so there's no need for me to have a silly fight with science. God is behind it all! Just as there's no fight with gravity or the speed of light, so there is no fight with scientific theories. A materialist may look and say, its all material, but for me, even gravity and light are dependent on God in order to be from moment to moment. Problem is to insist the Bible is a physics text-book instead of a book of spiritual truths, then you are all up in knots.

KD, you're really stretching this. So if Adam was the first man - having evolved from a whatever, from whom did eve evolve?

Hey KD (Kadude!), 

Eve came from Adam, we all did! We are "ben" Adam, binadam, Adamites, children of Adam, including Eve in a sense.

My query: the Bible says God formed Adam's body, not from nothingness, but from pre-existent matter...dead matter in fact (the earth). Evolution says our bodies were formed from pre-existent living matter proximately, but ultimately from some form of dead matter of this world that somehow "came alive" and then all forms of species derived from it.

My point? I don't see why someone who has no problem believing that a living body can come from dead matter, that is, to believe that dead matter can change (evolve!) into living matter and even a human body at that-- Why this same person is all up in arms when it is suggested that one living matter can come from another living matter. Seems to me that the latter is far less miraculous than the first yet creationists appear to believe the latter is impossible but the first very possible. Huh?

[vooke]

This is the lamest excuse for remaining confused I have ever heard; 'scientific' vs 'scriptural' definition of man. They use anatomy because you DON'T HAVE CREATURES WHO RESEMBLE KADAME WITHOUT A SOUL and ALL CREATURES THAT RESEMBLE KADAME ARE MEN

Can we safely state that God created man and blew into his nostrils his spirit and he became alive and he called him Adam, a man as literal as yourself?

That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.

[Kababe]

This is the lamest excuse for remaining confused I have ever heard; 'scientific' vs 'scriptural' definition of man. let me illustrate;

Can we safely state that God created man and blew into his nostrils his spirit and he became alive and he called him Adam?

That is a ridiculous "reasoning" process. I don't have to follow what science defines as a "man" to speak of Adam, they use anatomy, don't care about the soul, I do. Unless you are saying that the Biblical authors base their definition on modern science or that modern science bases its definition on theological concepts, then what you are saying and the point you are trying to extrapolate from it makes zero sense.

It is ridiculous to conflate the biblical and scientific definitions for anything. What I call man is Adam and his descendants. He was a different being from whatever existed before. What science calls "man" are just some form of animals even though scientifically they are called man/"homo". That's my point. Believing Adam was a different being from these scientific "men" and therefore the first of his kind, does not necessitate pretending science and the Bible use a common taxonomy which is what you are doing.

[vooke]

How was Adam different from these 'other scientific ""men" that existed before him?

It is ridiculous to conflate the biblical and scientific definitions for anything. What I call man is Adam and his descendants. He was a different being from whatever existed before. What science calls "man" are just some form of animals even though scientifically they are called man/"homo". That's my point. Believing Adam was a different being from these scientific "men" and therefore the first of his kind, does not necessitate pretending science and the Bible use a common taxonomy which is what you are doing.

[Kababe]

Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.

[vooke]

So Adam is a 'biblical man' but his parents were not?

Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.

[Kababe]

So Adam's parents were not men?

Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.

I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying? Adam came from animals (blasphemy!), Adam came from soil (dignifying). Last I looked, animals were a higher form of being than rocks or earth, even plants are a higher form than dead rock.

[vooke]

He is the FIRST MAN. wouldn't it be dishonest calling him FIRST seeing there was others BEFORE him?


1 Corinthians 15:45 King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying?

[Kababe]

He is the FIRST MAN. wouldn't it be dishonest calling him FIRST seeing there was others BEFORE him?

I don't know if Adam had "parents", but suppose he did, would that be such a shocker? Adam's parents was not dead soil either. Which is less dignifying?

Again, with the taxonomy. It would be dishonest only if the Biblical authors considered those other beings men.

[Kababe]

So Adam is a 'biblical man' but his parents were not?

Anatomically? I don't know, Probably very little difference. All that would matter to me, God was able to form his body from theirs.

No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.

[vooke]

There were no men BEFORE Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

So we have a man suddenly showing up. He can't be a product of evilution because that means;
1. He must have been born by something
2. Whatever gave birth to Adam must have been of the same kind as Adam

Is this clear?

No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.

[Kababe]

1 Corinthians 15:45King James Version (KJV)

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

No. Adam is clearly a being of his own kind in the Bible, all others are subject to him.

Amen!

[vooke]

kadame,
Could Adam have possibly EVOLVED?

[Kababe]

kadame,
Could Adam have possibly EVOLVED?

I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have formed his body from evolved homo sapiens which ultimately came from dead matter as all others.

[vooke]

So two pre-Adamic Homo Sapiens sub-humanoids hump like there is no tomorrow, Adam is conceived and then God takes over, breathes into this infant his spirit and MAKES it different from the parents, makes it in 'His own image'?

And we can also say that Adam's parents had other sub-humanoids but since God never breathed his spirit into them they was not made in the image of God

I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have prepared his body from evolved homo sapiens.

[Kababe]

So two pre-Adamic Homo Sapiens hump like there is no tomorrow, Adam is conceived and then God takes over, breathes into this infant his spirit and MAKES it different from the parents?

I think we are now going around in circles, isn't this was what we've been discussing? I do not think Adam evolved (unless in the micro sense, where we have the differences we have among our species). I believe its very possible that God could have prepared his body from evolved homo sapiens.

I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed Adam. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.

[vooke]

kadame,
We maynot with certainty explain HOW He did it BUT we know HOW he never did it;
1. He took the earth and DNA don't exist in earth
2. Adam was not conceived, otherwise Matthew and Genesis could have pointed to his parents and Paul is clearly mad to call Adam first. kinds bring forth kinds
3. Following 3, Adam could not have evolved as you concede since evilution demands propagation of traits from parent to offspring

I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed a different man. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.

[Kababe]

kadame,
We maynot with certainty explain HOW He did it BUT we know HOW he never did it;
1. He took the earth and DNA don't exist in earth
2. Adam was not conceived, otherwise Matthew and Genesis could have pointed to his parents and Paul is clearly mad to call Adam first. kinds bring forth kinds
3. Following 3, Adam could not have evolved as you concede since evilution demands propagation of traits from parent to offspring

I have no idea "HOW", maybe God did it the old fashioned way as you suggest, took the offspring of a homo sapien and made it different. Maybe he just took the DNA and formed a different man. Who knows? My point is simple: Nothing in the Bible shows that God could not have formed Adam this way, so there's zero reason to go all nuts about evolution. What we know? Adam's body came from pre-existent matter and God formed it. The How is his own.

1) DNA don't exist in earth. Sure! No dispute there. In fact, if you believe God made a soil statue in the shape of Adam and then made it become alive, it is the same problem you describe as evolution. First you have dead matter, then this matter is living matter. The only difference is that believers in God explain this change via supernatural intervention that has transformed the dead molecules into living molecules...DNA. The only other difference I see, the assumption that this change in form could not be gradual.

2) Adam was not conceived. I don't know. That's what you say, and being called first man is not incompatible as we have already argued. All depends on if you consider those other beings to have been men and they clearly were not. In fact MAN in the Bible=Adam and Adam's descendants.

3) follows from 2