The common ancestor

The common ancestor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Carico -> The common ancestor (8/5/2008 8:58:57 PM)
There have been many stories from evolutionists about a common ancestor. Some say there was only one, others say, there were many. So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? [sm=sadquestion.gif] or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God?[sm=sadquestion.gif] But if you claim that the imagination is evidence, then we can claim the Jesus lived without needing any witnesses to prove it. [;)]In fact, we can even make up a new history of the Jews and any story that isn't verified in history & claim it's true since that's what scientists do. They make up new tribes of people and creatures that no one in history can verify. So using their criteria, it's true that Jesus is Lord. Amen.[sm=icon_smile.gif]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/5/2008 10:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico There have been many stories from evolutionists about a common ancestor. Some say there was only one, others say, there were many. So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? [sm=sadquestion.gif] or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God?[sm=sadquestion.gif] There are many common ancestors. There is a common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. There is another common ancestor of lions and tigers. There is a different common ancestor of carrots and parsley. Any two species belonging to the same clade have a common ancestor. Just depends on how large a clade you are looking at. Horses and donkeys have a common ancestor. Tapirs and rhinoceroses have a common ancestor. Go far enough back and the horses, donkeys, tapirs and rhinos all have a common ancestor. And that group as a whole has a common ancestor with the whole group of bovines and ovines and deer. The thousands of species of beetles have a common ancestor. So do the hundreds of species of ants and the hundreds of species of bees. And far enough back the beetles and bees and ants all share a common insect ancestor. And the insects share a common ancestor with the crustaceans, and the whole group shares a common ancestor with other arthropods. But I suspect what you are asking about is one universal common ancestor. Was there one species that was common ancestor to all species today? Hard to say. It would be somewhat difficult to say if all eukaryotes have one common ancestor, much less all eukaryotes and all bacteria and archaea. But if there was one common ancestor to all life today, that's where you would look to get some ideas of its appearance.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/5/2008 10:53:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico There have been many stories from evolutionists about a common ancestor. Some say there was only one, others say, there were many. So my question is; why is this creature called a common ancestor? What is this common ancestor (or common ancestors) common to? All living things? If so, what would this beast look like in order to be common to all living things? [sm=sadquestion.gif] or only humans? Or isn't it a fact that even evolutionists know that there was one source from which all living things came? If so, then what is the difference between making up a beast of your imagination and believing in God?[sm=sadquestion.gif] There are many common ancestors. There is a common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. There is another common ancestor of lions and tigers. There is a different common ancestor of carrots and parsley. Any two species belonging to the same clade have a common ancestor. Just depends on how large a clade you are looking at. Horses and donkeys have a common ancestor. Tapirs and rhinoceroses have a common ancestor. Go far enough back and the horses, donkeys, tapirs and rhinos all have a common ancestor. And that group as a whole has a common ancestor with the whole group of bovines and ovines and deer. The thousands of species of beetles have a common ancestor. So do the hundreds of species of ants and the hundreds of species of bees. And far enough back the beetles and bees and ants all share a common insect ancestor. And the insects share a common ancestor with the crustaceans, and the whole group shares a common ancestor with other arthropods. But I suspect what you are asking about is one universal common ancestor. Was there one species that was common ancestor to all species today? Hard to say. It would be somewhat difficult to say if all eukaryotes have one common ancestor, much less all eukaryotes and all bacteria and archaea. But if there was one common ancestor to all life today, that's where you would look to get some ideas of its appearance. So where did neanderthls come from? Did they just one day appear? [sm=sadquestion.gif] According to evolutionists, neanderthals came from a common ancestor. So what did he look like and what was he common to? Then prove it by giving us a description of him. So what was the common ancestor of beetles common to? [sm=sadquestion.gif] Or is he also a figment of the imaginations of men which then makes him imaginary. [;)]

OneJohn410 -> RE: The common ancestor (8/5/2008 11:27:54 PM)
... and the statement by those studying evolution- of belief in God as He's made Himself known to be to His entire creation, in His Word (a #1 worldwide bestseller), but oh! there's so much more needing explanation than what His Word provides. So let's just sit down and argue about who's got the rest of that right and argue there's got to be more to it than that with the- what is it- 4 or so percent of the brain we actually use? I do know there's a lot of brain that science has studied for which there's no indication it is used in one's lifetime, as in most of it. That's the real crux of the rest of science and origins of how things came to be, it seems to me. Some are out to use God's creation to prove He exists, down to the most minute detail. Others are satisfied to concede to God He exists because there's just no other explanation needed but for how God has already spelled it out to His creation, through the writings of His followers, inspired to write His Word by God Himself. Science is logical, and has some real exactitude to it. There's a lot of benefit derived from it. I can appreciate it. I can appreciate how frustrating it could be to try to apply all that is science to the history of creation to try to be able to say aahhhhh! That's how the Red Sea stayed parted for as long as it did! That's how the sun stood still in the sky so long! That's what caused the walls to come tumbling down after the trumpets blasted away at them! At the same time, I realize the stuff of God's creation is not going to explain why God did what He did or provide any understanding of how He did what He did or how He does what He currently does. He's shared so much about Himself through His Word. Humankind does have the knowledge of good and evil from the garden of Eden, and its ever clear that we are out to explore both just as mightily as we can at times, and no, I don't mean by typing words at a computer. What is a scientist who could care less about the exact way creation came in to being, someone who knows Christ as her or his savior, and who uses their scientific genius for the betterment of mankind- what is she or he called? A non-evolutionist scientist? That does not automatically make her or him a creation scientist. Maybe I'm giving evolutionary study too much credit in the realm of science? Maybe evolution has a very small following today from the massive following it seemed to have when I learned about such a theory in school. I do not believe all scientists also embrace evolution as to 'how it had to be and we are still working on getting that paper together so hang in there folks.' I expect there's many out there who are quite willing to say, "I don't have all the answers, but I know Someone who does.' I am personally aware of a nerosurgeon who recently told a family he knew of no medical reason why the wife/mom should be alive today- she had experienced that much head trauma. Thanks for your time and common English replies, if any. I tried not to get real evolutionary and talk about four Ice Ages and names of people you haven't heard of before.[8D] OneJohn410

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 12:44:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneJohn410 ... and the statement by those studying evolution- of belief in God as He's made Himself known to be to His entire creation, in His Word (a #1 worldwide bestseller), but oh! there's so much more needing explanation than what His Word provides. So let's just sit down and argue about who's got the rest of that right and argue there's got to be more to it than that with the- what is it- 4 or so percent of the brain we actually use? I do know there's a lot of brain that science has studied for which there's no indication it is used in one's lifetime, as in most of it. That's the real crux of the rest of science and origins of how things came to be, it seems to me. Some are out to use God's creation to prove He exists, down to the most minute detail. Others are satisfied to concede to God He exists because there's just no other explanation needed but for how God has already spelled it out to His creation, through the writings of His followers, inspired to write His Word by God Himself. Science is logical, and has some real exactitude to it. There's a lot of benefit derived from it. I can appreciate it. I can appreciate how frustrating it could be to try to apply all that is science to the history of creation to try to be able to say aahhhhh! That's how the Red Sea stayed parted for as long as it did! That's how the sun stood still in the sky so long! That's what caused the walls to come tumbling down after the trumpets blasted away at them! At the same time, I realize the stuff of God's creation is not going to explain why God did what He did or provide any understanding of how He did what He did or how He does what He currently does. He's shared so much about Himself through His Word. Humankind does have the knowledge of good and evil from the garden of Eden, and its ever clear that we are out to explore both just as mightily as we can at times, and no, I don't mean by typing words at a computer. What is a scientist who could care less about the exact way creation came in to being, someone who knows Christ as her or his savior, and who uses their scientific genius for the betterment of mankind- what is she or he called? A non-evolutionist scientist? That does not automatically make her or him a creation scientist. Maybe I'm giving evolutionary study too much credit in the realm of science? Maybe evolution has a very small following today from the massive following it seemed to have when I learned about such a theory in school. I do not believe all scientists also embrace evolution as to 'how it had to be and we are still working on getting that paper together so hang in there folks.' I expect there's many out there who are quite willing to say, "I don't have all the answers, but I know Someone who does.' I am personally aware of a nerosurgeon who recently told a family he knew of no medical reason why the wife/mom should be alive today- she had experienced that much head trauma. Thanks for your time and common English replies, if any. I tried not to get real evolutionary and talk about four Ice Ages and names of people you haven't heard of before.[8D] OneJohn410 The bottom line is that when scientists agree with God they are always right. And when they disagree with God they are always wrong. [;)] But for "theistic" evolutionists, they need to remember 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written." That means, don't add things to the bible that aren't in there such as a 4.5 billion year old earth or change Genesis 2:7 to make it read; "For the the Lord God formed man out of the wombs of wild beasts." God doesn't think too highly of humans putting words in his mouth and claiming that he said them.

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:19:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico But for "theistic" evolutionists, they need to remember 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written." That means, don't add things to the bible that aren't in there ... ...such as a rule that says all scripture is history and God never teaches by telling stories.

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneJohn410 What is a scientist who could care less about the exact way creation came in to being, someone who knows Christ as her or his savior, and who uses their scientific genius for the betterment of mankind- what is she or he called? Usually a theistic evolutionist, although the alternate term "evolutionary creationist" is preferred by some. quote: I do not believe all scientists also embrace evolution as to 'how it had to be and we are still working on getting that paper together so hang in there folks.' You are quite right. The overwhelming majority of biologists, including those who are Christians, hold that evolution is a solidly established theory. No one is waiting to "get that paper together". Hundreds are being published every year. Google Pubmed and do a search on the word "evolution" to view many of them.

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:36:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So where did neanderthls come from? Did they just one day appear? [sm=sadquestion.gif] According to evolutionists, neanderthals came from a common ancestor. So what did he look like and what was he common to? Then prove it by giving us a description of him. From H. erectus who was the common ancestor of h.heidelburgensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. sapiensas well as H.neanderthalensis The best descriptions are in the original research papers, but you can get a quick summary here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html quote: So what was the common ancestor of beetles common to? Beetles, of course.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:38:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico But for "theistic" evolutionists, they need to remember 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written." That means, don't add things to the bible that aren't in there ... ...such as a rule that says all scripture is history and God never teaches by telling stories. One can't teach a spiritual truth if the story itself isn't true. Claiming that the OT kings really lived but didn't really live at the same time is a contradiction. For example, one can't say that David killed Goliath but really didn't kill Goliath at the same time.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:45:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So where did neanderthls come from? Did they just one day appear? [sm=sadquestion.gif] According to evolutionists, neanderthals came from a common ancestor. So what did he look like and what was he common to? Then prove it by giving us a description of him. From H. erectus who was the common ancestor of h.heidelburgensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. sapiensas well as H.neanderthalensis The best descriptions are in the original research papers, but you can get a quick summary here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html quote: So what was the common ancestor of beetles common to? Beetles, of course. Beetles and what else? It has to be something else or beetles simply always came from beetles. So what is the common ancestor of humans common to? if it's just humans, tha means that humans have always come from humans which creationists have always known. [;)] we could play this game all day long. I'm asking who the first beast was from which humans derived and what did he look like? Or did he just appear? If so, then why couldn't humans have just appeared? [;)]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:45:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico But for "theistic" evolutionists, they need to remember 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written." That means, don't add things to the bible that aren't in there ... ...such as a rule that says all scripture is history and God never teaches by telling stories. One can't teach a spiritual truth if the story itself isn't true. Claiming that the OT kings really lived but didn't really live at the same time is a contradiction. For example, one can't say that David killed Goliath but really didn't kill Goliath at the same time. I didn't suggest the story wasn't true. I just said there is no rule that requires all stories in scripture to be history. I suppose you think only historical stories are true. Well, that's your problem.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico But for "theistic" evolutionists, they need to remember 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written." That means, don't add things to the bible that aren't in there ... ...such as a rule that says all scripture is history and God never teaches by telling stories. One can't teach a spiritual truth if the story itself isn't true. Claiming that the OT kings really lived but didn't really live at the same time is a contradiction. For example, one can't say that David killed Goliath but really didn't kill Goliath at the same time. I didn't suggest the story wasn't true. I just said there is no rule that requires all stories in scripture to be history. I suppose you think only historical stories are true. Well, that's your problem. Of course there is or God couldn't be truth. [;)]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:53:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Beetles and what else? It has to be something else or beetles simply always came from beetles. The common ancestor of beetles was the common ancestor of all beetles and nothing else. It is called a common ancestor since many species of beetles are derived from it. And all of its descendants are beetles. Now the first beetle, of course, shared a common ancestor with something that was not a beetle. But that would not be the common ancestor of beetles. It would be the common ancestor of a different clade. (Not sure which, since I have no background in entomology and don't know the phylogeny of insects.) quote: So what is the common ancestor of humans common to? Depends on your definition of "human". Does human mean only H. sapiens (the only living member of the genus?) Or would you call neanderthals "human" as well? What about H. erectus? Where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 2:56:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Beetles and what else? It has to be something else or beetles simply always came from beetles. The common ancestor of beetles was the common ancestor of all beetles and nothing else. It is called a common ancestor since many species of beetles are derived from it. And all of its descendants are beetles. Now the first beetle, of course, shared a common ancestor with something that was not a beetle. But that would not be the common ancestor of beetles. It would be the common ancestor of a different clade. (Not sure which, since I have no background in entomology and don't know the phylogeny of insects.) quote: So what is the common ancestor of humans common to? Depends on your definition of "human". Does human mean only H. sapiens (the only living member of the genus?) Or would you call neanderthals "human" as well? What about H. erectus? Where do you draw the line between human and non-human? So beetles have always come from beetles and humans have always come from humans just like the bible says, "each animal breeds its own kind." End of story. Goodnight. [sm=gradsmile.gif]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 9:17:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So beetles have always come from beetles and humans have always come from humans just like the bible says, "each animal breeds its own kind." End of story. Goodnight. [sm=gradsmile.gif] Yes, there is not as much difference between scripture and the theory of evolution as some people think. The theory of evolution requires that all descendants of the first beetle species be beetles, and all descendants of the first clam species be clams and so on. So all descendants of the first tetrapod (including humans) are tetrapods (4-limbed creatures) and all descendants of the first mammal (including humans) are mammals and all descendants of the first ape (including humans) are apes and all descendants of the first humans are human.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 10:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So beetles have always come from beetles and humans have always come from humans just like the bible says, "each animal breeds its own kind." End of story. Goodnight. [sm=gradsmile.gif] Yes, there is not as much difference between scripture and the theory of evolution as some people think. The theory of evolution requires that all descendants of the first beetle species be beetles, and all descendants of the first clam species be clams and so on. So all descendants of the first tetrapod (including humans) are tetrapods (4-limbed creatures) and all descendants of the first mammal (including humans) are mammals and all descendants of the first ape (including humans) are apes and all descendants of the first humans are human. So do you believe Genesis 2;7 that man came from the dust of the ground or do you think that God is wrong and scientists are right that man came from the wombs of apes?[sm=sadquestion.gif]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 11:07:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So do you believe Genesis 2;7 that man came from the dust of the ground or do you think that God is wrong and scientists are right that man came from the wombs of apes?[sm=sadquestion.gif] I think God and the scientists agree with each other and you are the one with the interpretive problem.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 11:10:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico So do you believe Genesis 2;7 that man came from the dust of the ground or do you think that God is wrong and scientists are right that man came from the wombs of apes?[sm=sadquestion.gif] I think God and the scientists agree with each other and you are the one with the interpretive problem. Again, since you claim you understand the simple words in Genesis 2:7, then you obviously think God is wrong when he said he created man out of the dust of the ground. So please don't insult those of us who can read. You're the one who's changing Genesis 2;7, into, "For the Lord God created man out of the wombs of wild beasts." So you're not fooling people who believe the bible as written and you're certainly not fooling God. Sorry. [;)] Now I can see why you deleted my thread on distinguishing the words in the bible from people's interpretations of the bible because it's clear that you don't know the difference yourself since you feel free to change the bible to make it say what you want it to say. "By their fruits you will recognize them."[;)]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 11:14:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Again, since you claim you understand the simple words in Genesis 2:7, then you obviously think God is wrong when he said he created man out of the dust of the ground. So please don't insult those of us who can read. You're the one who's changing Genesis 2;7, into, "For the Lord God created man out of the wombs of wild beasts." So you're not fooling people who believe the bible as written and you're certainly not fooling God. Sorry. [;)] I am not insulting anyone who can read. I am questioning the reading competency of those who cannot recognize an obvious metaphor.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 11:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Again, since you claim you understand the simple words in Genesis 2:7, then you obviously think God is wrong when he said he created man out of the dust of the ground. So please don't insult those of us who can read. You're the one who's changing Genesis 2;7, into, "For the Lord God created man out of the wombs of wild beasts." So you're not fooling people who believe the bible as written and you're certainly not fooling God. Sorry. [;)] I am not insulting anyone who can read. I am questioning the reading competency of those who cannot recognize an obvious metaphor. A metaphor to what? Anything you want that verse to mean? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] Sorry friend, but when humans die, we decay back into dust, proving that we were made from dust. You simply think scientists are more infallible than God is. But since apes don't turn into humans in reality, then God is making the wisdom of the word foolishness which he said he would do. [;)] But since you worship scientists as gods, here's how you now have to rewrite the bible: 1)Either you don't believe God when he said he created humans in his image, or you now have to add that God created wild animals in his image since you claim we came from wild animals and are no better than animals ourselves. So if we were created in God's image, hat would make God himself an animal which is blasphemous. 2) If the world is 4.5 billion years old, that would mean that each day of creation was millions of years which would have made Adam who was created on the 6th day, millions of years old by the time of the fall thus changing most of the rest of Genesis. Or, you have to say that God didn't create the world. 3) You then can't believe in Adam and Eve 4) You then change the descendants of the Jews and and strike out the passage talking about Adam and Eve, their descendants and original sin. 5) You then have to play God and make up a new story of how sin entered the world and the reason for God's redemption, or claim we don;t need redemption, and on and on and on. And you have the gaul to attack me because I believe the bible as written and don't change it to suit my itching ears? [sm=eek.gif]You need to remove the huge plank in your eye before you're qualified to remove the speck from the eyes of others. [8\|] But that's what happens when you claim that scientists are infallible . You end up making a fool of God instead of believing God when he says that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in His sight. But God will not be mocked. I only hope you find that out before it's too late.

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 1:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor to what? Anything you want that verse to mean? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] I hope your English teacher taught you better than that. btw I was an English teacher, so I know what a metaphor is and that it cannot mean anything you want it to mean. But maybe your knowledge of literature is as poor as your knowledge of science. quote: Sorry friend, but when humans die, we decay back into dust, proving that we were made from dust. Were you made of dust literally or metaphorically? Literally, I was not made of dust. I was made of a cell formed by the union of a sperm from my father with an egg from my mother. So if the decay of my deceased body proves anything, it only proves that I am made of dust metaphorically---just as the bible depicts. quote: 1)Either you don't believe God when he said he created humans in his image, or you now have to add that God created wild animals in his image since you claim we came from wild animals and are no better than animals ourselves. So if we were created in God's image, hat would make God himself an animal which is blasphemous. We are animals. Would you rather be called a vegetable, a fungus, a bacterium, a mineral? The great creationist taxonomist Linneaus classified humans as animals, as vertebrate mammals, as primates and (in private) even suggested that chimpanzees and humans ought to be placed in the same genus. Moreover, scripture asserts that we are animals. "I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals." Ecclesiates 3:18 So the bible itself tells you that God made this animal called human in God's own image. Who am I to quarrel with God? quote: 2) If the world is 4.5 billion years old, that would mean that each day of creation was millions of years which would have made Adam who was created on the 6th day, millions of years old by the time of the fall thus changing most of the rest of Genesis. Or, you have to say that God didn't create the world. Not true. That is day/age theology espoused by Old Earth Creationists. I don't agree with it. quote: 3) You then can't believe in Adam and Eve Sure I can. Many TEs do. quote: 4) You then change the descendants of the Jews and and strike out the passage talking about Adam and Eve, their descendants and original sin. Nope. I believe original sin is a reality. quote: 5) You then have to play God and make up a new story of how sin entered the world and the reason for God's redemption, or claim we don;t need redemption, and on and on and on. Nope. I agree that sin entered the world when the first humans disobeyed God. So, as you see, you are inventing what I supposedly have to believe. You are tackling a straw man of your own making. Have fun.

drj11 -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 1:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor to what? Anything you want that verse to mean? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] Sorry friend, but when humans die, we decay back into dust, proving that we were made from dust. Actually, uh... corpses do not "decay back into dust". People use it as a metaphor to obfuscate the grim reality... we all end up in the belly (or other belly-ish apparatus or organ) of millions of creepy bugs, worms and bacteria. Depending on how or where you die, your corpse can become a lot of different things, most of the options don't include dust. Complete nonsense.

hellohellohi -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 1:52:18 PM)
Only skimmed this thread. The original "ancestor" is not supposed by theorists to be a beast or organism even, but a self-replicable molecule, as I understand it. It is supposed that the ability to self-replicate (but with error) and the fact that resources for replication are limited would set up scarcity, competition, and through the variation brought about through the errors, would result in some forms which had a relative competitive advantage for the limited materials of reproduction; thus, these forms would exist in greater proportions in later generations.

Carico -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 3:01:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor to what? Anything you want that verse to mean? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] I hope your English teacher taught you better than that. btw I was an English teacher, so I know what a metaphor is and that it cannot mean anything you want it to mean. But maybe your knowledge of literature is as poor as your knowledge of science. quote: Sorry friend, but when humans die, we decay back into dust, proving that we were made from dust. Were you made of dust literally or metaphorically? Literally, I was not made of dust. I was made of a cell formed by the union of a sperm from my father with an egg from my mother. So if the decay of my deceased body proves anything, it only proves that I am made of dust metaphorically---just as the bible depicts. quote: 1)Either you don't believe God when he said he created humans in his image, or you now have to add that God created wild animals in his image since you claim we came from wild animals and are no better than animals ourselves. So if we were created in God's image, hat would make God himself an animal which is blasphemous. We are animals. Would you rather be called a vegetable, a fungus, a bacterium, a mineral? The great creationist taxonomist Linneaus classified humans as animals, as vertebrate mammals, as primates and (in private) even suggested that chimpanzees and humans ought to be placed in the same genus. Moreover, scripture asserts that we are animals. "I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals." Ecclesiates 3:18 So the bible itself tells you that God made this animal called human in God's own image. Who am I to quarrel with God? quote: 2) If the world is 4.5 billion years old, that would mean that each day of creation was millions of years which would have made Adam who was created on the 6th day, millions of years old by the time of the fall thus changing most of the rest of Genesis. Or, you have to say that God didn't create the world. Not true. That is day/age theology espoused by Old Earth Creationists. I don't agree with it. quote: 3) You then can't believe in Adam and Eve Sure I can. Many TEs do. quote: 4) You then change the descendants of the Jews and and strike out the passage talking about Adam and Eve, their descendants and original sin. Nope. I believe original sin is a reality. quote: 5) You then have to play God and make up a new story of how sin entered the world and the reason for God's redemption, or claim we don;t need redemption, and on and on and on. Nope. I agree that sin entered the world when the first humans disobeyed God. So, as you see, you are inventing what I supposedly have to believe. You are tackling a straw man of your own making. Have fun. A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes. And since you haven't shown how Genesis 2;7 relates to humans coming from apes, then your statement is simply an unfounded attack. [sm=eek.gif] The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor. [sm=purplelaugh.gif] So you need to come up with something better than that. Good grief. [8\|] The degree that some people go to try to change the Word of God to fit the foolish statements of scientists would be funny if it weren't so tragic. [:o]

gluadys -> RE: The common ancestor (8/6/2008 3:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico A metaphor has to relate to the passage. I know because I'm a writer. And nothing in Genesis 2:7 relates to humans coming from the wombs of apes. It doesn't have to. It simply has to be a metaphor of making something--whatever the actual means. Compare for example the metaphor of the snake in Genesis 3. Nothing there relates the snake to Satan, yet we understand that it is a metaphor of Satan. quote: The dust found in the graves of rotted corpses isn't a metaphor. Read drj11's post above.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI