• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How many say things to libs just to irk them hehehe

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
Q: God created man in His image, right?
A: Again, that is what Genesis says.

In the fossil record, critters that look like you and me haven't been around very long. Best I can tell, God must look like a Neanderthal. We apparently killed off all the critters made in God's image and now we own the place.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.

Where the physical body came from is, at this point, still the object of many scientific inquiries. That a species of chimpanzee may have shared a common ancestor with humans is still a distinct possibility.

@Mr. Birdman: Science is pretty much agreed that the earth is many millions of years old. Scientific Creationism, which has nothing of science in it, believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Notice that I said, "believes", as there is not one iota of concrete evidence to back that particular fallacy. None of the papers that have been published purporting to "prove" this fallacy have ever been subjected to that most sacred of scientific rites; peer review.
 

BrianB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
223
Location
Florida
I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.

I got what you were saying though my use of your quote as a lead in to my post would imply otherwise. Your quote just gave rise to the idea in my head and so I quoted it instead of Genesis because I was being lazy.

Interesting discussion all the way around. We don't know the answers to a lot of these things even if we think we do. Nonetheless, discussing and even debating what those answers might be and why we think what we think is some good exercise for the old noggin. :)
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Man was not created to BE God. He was created "in the image" of God. That means he has some (decidedly NOT all) attributes of God.

BTW, that 85% figure depends on how similarity is measured. Depending on technique, every number between 0% and 100% is achievable, making the 85% number arbitrary and capricious.

Never did I say that man was created to be God. I did state that the part of man created in God's image was his immortal soul.

As for the DNA, the American Museum of Natural History has a most informative article on the subject:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...ding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Apparently, my guesstimate of 85% is conservative and 98% is closer to actuality according to the article. There are also some other factors which were pointed out in the article.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
For those of the religious persuasion, it occurs to me to ask...

Why is the Judeo-Christian explanation of man's emergence the only one being offered?

Why is the Inuit explanation of the Raven forcing the ground up from the deep by stabbing it with his beak and fixing it into place not as reputable?

What is it about the Chinese explanation of Pangu creating the universe from a formless chaos and coalescing it into a cosmic egg for 18,000 years where Yin and Yang became balanced in perfect harmony that is unbelievable?

For that matter, what's wrong with the Hopi Indian rather sensible explanation that Spider Grandmother caused a hollow reed (or bamboo) to grow into the sky, and it emerged in the Fourth World at the sipapu. The people then climbed up the reed into this world, emerging from the sipapu. The location of the sipapu is given as in the Grand Canyon?




I'm just not seeing why the Christian theory is superior to these others, could one of the religious types explain it, please?
 
Last edited:

Mr Birdman

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
209
Location
United States
?????

Favorite questions to Creationists:

Q: God created man, right?
A: Why, yes! It says so in Genesis.

Q: God created man in His image, right?
A: Again, that is what Genesis says.

Statement: Since God is a Spirit, then the creation spoken of in Genesis was the endowment of the physical creature with an immortal spirit. It is obvious from looking around that the physical being we call man was not created in the image of just one entity. If this is not so, then why do we share something like 85% of our DNA with a species of chimpanzee?

Usually this is the point where I get to observe smoke coming out of their ears and their mouths working soundlessly!

Why, yes, I am an evil old man. Why do you ask?:lol:




What are you trying to say? Common dna comes from a common designer. duh
 

Mr Birdman

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
209
Location
United States
science

I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.

Where the physical body came from is, at this point, still the object of many scientific inquiries. That a species of chimpanzee may have shared a common ancestor with humans is still a distinct possibility.

@Mr. Birdman: Science is pretty much agreed that the earth is many millions of years old. Scientific Creationism, which has nothing of science in it, believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Notice that I said, "believes", as there is not one iota of concrete evidence to back that particular fallacy. None of the papers that have been published purporting to "prove" this fallacy have ever been subjected to that most sacred of scientific rites; peer review.



Don't you mean the evolution religious zealots agree the earth is billions of years old? You have to have billions of years so their religion look good. Science tells us that the earth can not be that old. Every thing that was ever used to prove evolution has been proven wrong. Come on keep up
 

Mr Birdman

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
209
Location
United States
ribosomes

I'm thinking perhaps you are confused in some of your terminology. Bacteria do not have rhizomes, although they do sometimes infect the rhizomes of organisms that do have them. Perhaps you meant ribosomes (aka RNA)? Bacteria do have ribosomes, as do all living cells. I'm not a biologist, so just to double check my feeble knowledge I ran your post by someone with a bachelor's degree in biology. They too could not make any sense of the above.

If you want to argue that evolution is not responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria there are much better ways to do it. One particularly persuasive essay I read argued that bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes not from random mutations conferring an advantage to the bacteria, but due to existing differences in genetics among the population of bacteria. When antibiotics are introduced those bacteria with a genetic makeup that helps them survive the assault will survive and those that don't will die. The survivors reproduce and thrive. How the genetic differences between the bacteria occurred in the first place to provide those surviving bacteria, that are the same species as those that died, with different genes is anybody's guess. Since bacteria reproduce asexually by the process of mitosis each offspring is essentially a genetic clone. Absent random mutation or genetic damage due to radiation the only other explanation would be "when God made the Earth 6000 years ago he made all these different bacteria -- tens of thousands of variants of the same species -- exactly then as they are now". If that works for you, that's cool.

After thinking some more I thought it good to point out that animals don't have to have mutation to "evolve" by selective pressure. Selective pressure can simply favor animals with a particular attribute over others of the same species that don't share it. Maybe a horsey type thing has a slightly longer neck than his brothers and can reach higher in the trees and this helps. He reproduces better and his children have slightly longer necks too. They inbreed and the trait is amplified. A thousand years later maybe you have a giraffe.

If that seems crazy, look at what humans have done with dogs in the thousands of years we have been selectively inbreeding them to enhance particular traits. All domestic dogs are descended from gray wolves. And now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahua's to Dachshunds. They are vastly different critters - each forcibly evolved by artificial selective pressure at the hands of man to serve a particular purpose.



I have read of those things and they are quite interesting. They don't explain why we don't find any antelope skeletons very far back in the geologic record. Of all of the thousands of species on the planet today, virtually none of them are found in the same layers as prehistoric fossils. Finding a single unexplainable example doesn't solve the mystery of why it isn't pervasive. If they have all been here since day one it is quite strange.

Equally strange is the premise that according to the bible humans and dinosaurs cohabited the planet at the same time, yet we have no cave drawings of t-rex or triceratops or velociraptors. We have some drawings of mammoths, and even saber tooth cats, but that makes sense because the evidence available to us says Neanderthals did live at the same time as those animals. Sure there's the mention of Behemoth in Job but even if you buy that as a dinosaur reference that's a pretty damn paltry blip in the historical radar for something that should have been a pretty big deal to our ancestors and been drawn and written about extensively.



I never mentioned geologic columns or made any claims about how many layers are where. I did talk about what is and isn't found in some of those layers though. Don't get me wrong, I don't know where all these animals came from either. I don't know of any proof that they got here by evolution, or by any other means. I just think that saying it all got here by magic is sort of pulling an intellectual escape hatch.

You really should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK3eh4Z5Ko4

No cave painting? Did they erase the ones in the Grand Cannon, France, or the ones in Peru? What about the ones in Africa?
Dogs we started with a dog and ended up with a dog. No evolution Horsey type thing? Don't you mean kind like the Bible says. Horse Donkey Zebra all the same kind of animal they can all breed and have kids. No evolution there either.
Neanderthals just another false truth. Neanderthals were just old people with diseases. Proven wrong 50 years ago. Letolie Africa human bones and dinosaur bones found in the same layer of rock. Glen rose Texan dino foot prints and human foot prints found together. Like I said if you are determined not to find something you will not find it because you are not looking for it. And you biology friend the Bible says "professing them self to be wise they became fools and to beware of science falsely so called.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Never did I say that man was created to be God. I did state that the part of man created in God's image was his immortal soul.

As for the DNA, the American Museum of Natural History has a most informative article on the subject:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...ding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Apparently, my guesstimate of 85% is conservative and 98% is closer to actuality according to the article. There are also some other factors which were pointed out in the article.
The non-faithful never miss a opportunity to dump on Christians and their faith. No big deal, this is a land where you won't get your head lopped off for no believing.

Anyway.....

Sponges share 70% of human genes, contradicting the expected evolutionary time frame and genetic predictions

http://youngearth.com/sponges-share...volutionary-timeframe-and-genetic-predictions
Obviously we all may know someone who is more like 98% related to a sponge vs. being 98% related to a chimp.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
The non-faithful never miss a opportunity to dump on Christians and their faith. No big deal, this is a land where you won't get your head lopped off for no believing.

Anyway.....

Obviously we all may know someone who is more like 98% related to a sponge vs. being 98% related to a chimp.

Wherever did you get the idea that I am non-Christian? I am a Christian who does do his own research and who uses the brain he was given to come to his own conclusions.

@Mr. Birdman: No, I meant exactly what I posted. There is no such thing as "evolution religion". There is a "Creation" religion which continues to affirm, almost cult-like, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You seem to be enamored of that belief.

@Fallschirmjaeger: For those who believe in those particular ways, they are just as real as any other. None, to include the Judeo-Christian belief, can be proven. There is a reason it is called a "belief".
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Wherever did you get the idea that I am non-Christian? I am a Christian who does do his own research and who uses the brain he was given to come to his own conclusions.

@Mr. Birdman: No, I meant exactly what I posted. There is no such thing as "evolution religion". There is a "Creation" religion which continues to affirm, almost cult-like, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You seem to be enamored of that belief.

@Fallschirmjaeger: For those who believe in those particular ways, they are just as real as any other. None, to include the Judeo-Christian belief, can be proven. There is a reason it is called a "belief".
Didn't state that you were not a Christian. Did not state that you were non-faithful. Where did your brain "come from?" A sponge, chimp, or God.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Didn't state that you were not a Christian. Did not state that you were non-faithful. Where did your brain "come from?" A sponge, chimp, or God.

My brain was, in my belief, a gift from my Creator. I also firmly believe that He meant for me to use it and I do.

Your post gave me the impression that you believed me to be non-Christian, "The non-faithful never miss a opportunity to dump on Christians and their faith."


 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I think some may have missed the point of my post concerning God creating man in His image. The act of creation spoken of in Genesis was, I firmly believe, when God endowed the physical creature we call "man" with an immortal spirit. That "immortal spirit" is the part of man that is the image of God, not the physical body.

Where the physical body came from is, at this point, still the object of many scientific inquiries. That a species of chimpanzee may have shared a common ancestor with humans is still a distinct possibility.

@Mr. Birdman: Science is pretty much agreed that the earth is many millions of years old. Scientific Creationism, which has nothing of science in it, believes the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Notice that I said, "believes", as there is not one iota of concrete evidence to back that particular fallacy. None of the papers that have been published purporting to "prove" this fallacy have ever been subjected to that most sacred of scientific rites; peer review.

Actually, it is not much of a possibility as no extraspecial evolution has ever been demonstrated. Evolution within a species is common and even currently observable. But, in order for a chimpanzee and a human to have a common ancestor, extraspecial evolution must have occurred.

To the best of mankind's knowledge, it hasn't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Never did I say that man was created to be God. I did state that the part of man created in God's image was his immortal soul.

As for the DNA, the American Museum of Natural History has a most informative article on the subject:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/pas...ding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps

Apparently, my guesstimate of 85% is conservative and 98% is closer to actuality according to the article. There are also some other factors which were pointed out in the article.

Again, that percentage depends on how you measure. The decision on how to measure is arbitrary and capricious and can be done in ways that will generate any number from 0% to 100%. I would put it much closer to 0%, as the chromosomal configurations are so different as to prevent mating (thank God, pun intended).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
My brain was, in my belief, a gift from my Creator. I also firmly believe that He meant for me to use it and I do.

Your post gave me the impression that you believed me to be non-Christian, "The non-faithful never miss a opportunity to dump on Christians and their faith."

OK.

I never stated that you were dumping on Christians either.

I have read your words on this matter and you seem to me to be a Godly man. That is good enough for me.
 

Mr Birdman

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
209
Location
United States
Religion

Wherever did you get the idea that I am non-Christian? I am a Christian who does do his own research and who uses the brain he was given to come to his own conclusions.

@Mr. Birdman: No, I meant exactly what I posted. There is no such thing as "evolution religion". There is a "Creation" religion which continues to affirm, almost cult-like, that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You seem to be enamored of that belief.

@Fallschirmjaeger: For those who believe in those particular ways, they are just as real as any other. None, to include the Judeo-Christian belief, can be proven. There is a reason it is called a "belief".



Evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. You have to imagine, believe, maybe possible, could have would have should have. There is no proof that it happened. Every thing they have tried to use as proof has been proven wrong or a lie. Science real science tells us that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How can you say you are a Christian when you don't believe the Bible?
You keep quoting Charles Lyle. with his hatred of Christianity
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. You have to imagine, believe, maybe possible, could have would have should have. There is no proof that it happened. Every thing they have tried to use as proof has been proven wrong or a lie. Science real science tells us that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

How can you say you are a Christian when you don't believe the Bible?
You keep quoting Charles Lyle. with his hatred of Christianity
Ah.....the ole blue pill or red pill trick. Faith is a uniquely personal thing. Subjecting faith to scientific the method is neither rewarding or wise.

In my view, the Bible is a story based on historical events. It is a good read, and like any other story, the author/authors do have a literary license. Would I have written the story the way they did? I don't know, I was not there, then.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Ah.....the ole blue pill or red pill trick. Faith is a uniquely personal thing. Subjecting faith to scientific the method is neither rewarding or wise.

In my view, the Bible is a story based on historical events. It is a good read, and like any other story, the author/authors do have a literary license. Would I have written the story the way they did? I don't know, I was not there, then.

And there is truth if ever I saw it. FWIW, if one is serious about religious studies, one does not confine oneself to just one version of the Bible or, indeed, to just the Bible.

Read the writings of other belief systems and they may just open your eyes to elements of your own belief system. I've read the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Qu'ran, and, when reading my Bible, cross-referenced to other editions of the Bible. At times, it has been quite eye-opening.

For the record; I prefer the King James Version, not for accuracy but for the beauty of the language. The Song of Solomon just does not have the ooomph to it in modern English that it does in the archaic English.

Science and religion, especially of the Judeo-Christian variety, do have some common ground if one looks with a non-judgmental eye at the writings of both.
 
Top