Testing Common Ancestry vs. Separate Ancestry

[River Jordan]

Genesis 2
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Yep, and how did God do that? Genesis 1:24 gives us a clue: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

"Let the land produce living creatures". Sounds compatible with evolution, doesn't it?

I don't understand what you are getting at. If God created a male and female wild beast, then they would be multiplying just as God commanded Adam in Genesis 1:28. Do you think that the living creatures were not multiplying while Adam was waiting on a helper in Genesis2:20-22?

Do you seriously think "wild animal" is a single kind?

no...it isn't. God had his hand in everything right up to giving Adam and Eve ruler status in Genesis 1:28 [pre-fall]

Sorry, but you just saying "no it isn't" doesn't trump what scripture actually says. We see God letting things happen throughout Genesis 1. God says "let there be light", "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water", "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear", "Let the land produce vegetation", and so on. Over and over we see God creating by letting things happen.

There would be no purpose for such a thing.

Again your say-so doesn't trump scripture.

1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable

Exactly. The natural (our physical form) came first, which is precisely what I've been saying.

So you are going to write it off as a supernatural act of God yet you agree that mankind is evolving without him???

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that reflects what I've been posting at all.

 

[River Jordan]

Interested in seeing how he reconciles common ancestry of all living beings, according to man, with Corinthians which spells out the exact opposite. Don`t hold your breath, there is a reason why I don't bother responding much to creatures like River Jordan. Its like talking to an atheist pretending to believe the word of God, bizarre.

So you're of the mind that evolution = atheism, even though the vast majority of the "evolutionists" in the world are theists?

 

[Dcopymope]

So you're of the mind that evolution = atheism, even though the vast majority of the "evolutionists" in the world are theists?

Who cares, the groups that determine what constitutes 'science' are overwhelmingly atheist. The national academy of science, for example, is majority atheist. Atheism, when it comes to the top of the pyramid where it matters, is firmly entrenched in the field of science. As for the word "theist", this is a generic term that could be referring to a Hindu Brahman for all we know. It just means they believe in a god of some sort. This does not mean they believe themselves to be adopted as sons of the true God through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. And you seem to think that I'm supposed to care so much about what the theists of the world think occurred in the past versus what is stated as fact in plain English in the word of God. God says that man and animals have two different kind of flesh, but man says we are all one flesh, real simple.

 

[River Jordan]

Who cares, the groups that determine what constitutes 'science' are overwhelmingly atheist. The national academy of science, for example, is majority atheist. Atheism, when it comes to the top of the pyramid where it matters, is firmly entrenched in the field of science.

So you've basically conceded all of the sciences to atheism. Every field of science, every new discovery, every new technology, every new medical breakthrough.....atheism gets all the credit.

I have no idea why you would willingly do such a thing.

As for the word "theist", this is a generic term that could be referring to a Hindu Brahman for all we know. It just means they believe in a god of some sort.

Well duh. If you're going to assert that evolution = atheism, the fact that the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists is relevant, regardless of what type of theists they are.

This does not mean they believe themselves to be adopted as sons of the true God through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. And you seem to think that I'm supposed to care so much about what the theists of the world think occurred in the past versus what is stated as fact in plain English in the word of God. God says that man and animals have two different kind of flesh, but man says we are all one flesh, real simple.

So in your mind, only Christians who believe exactly as you do count?

Ok then. :wacko:

 

[Angelina]

Yep, and how did God do that? Genesis 1:24 gives us a clue: And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
"Let the land produce living creatures". Sounds compatible with evolution, doesn't it?

Oh come on!...straight after that, in verse 25 the writer then goes on to say ~ . 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The writer uses the same pattern in verse 20 where he says ~ “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” Then he goes on to explain it in greater detail in verse 21 where the writer says ~ 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Evolution? I think not.

Do you seriously think "wild animal" is a single kind?

Should I have named a particular wild animal for you? I thought that you could imagine that for yourself after all...you do such a sterling job of finding imaginary places where evolution exists... :huh:

Sorry, but you just saying "no it isn't" doesn't trump what scripture actually says. We see God letting things happen throughout Genesis 1. God says "let there be light", "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water", "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear", "Let the land produce vegetation", and so on. Over and over we see God creating by letting things happen.

He didn't create by letting things happen???He spoke and whatever he spoke became a reality because is able to bring into being that which does not exist... Romans 4:17

Again your say-so doesn't trump scripture.

I want you to think very carefully.... :unsure: why would God want to create mankind to evolve when he is more interested in their heart and not their flesh?

Exactly. The natural (our physical form) came first, which is precisely what I've been saying.

...but it does not mean anything unless you read the entire passage which says that man will some day bear the image of the heavenly man which means that the earthly, perishable man must some day cease in his physical existence... This is the only way that man can inherit the Kingdom of heaven.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that reflects what I've been posting at all.

If you really want a good discussion on this subject you need to be able to look at everything objectively without holding onto your doctrine like it was something that needs to be defended at all costs. It is not God and it is not the bible. These should be more important to a believer than a questionable theology...don't you think??? :huh:

 

[River Jordan]

Oh come on!...straight after that, in verse 25 the writer then goes on to say ~ . 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Right. He created them by letting the earth bring forth.

The writer uses the same pattern in verse 20 where he says ~ “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” Then he goes on to explain it in greater detail in verse 21 where the writer says ~ 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Right. Remember, you objected to me pointing out that scripture says God created by letting things happen, but here you are quoting the scriptures where God creates by letting things happen!

Evolution? I think not.

"Let the earth bring forth" sounds compatible with evolution to me.

Should I have named a particular wild animal for you? I thought that you could imagine that for yourself after all...you do such a sterling job of finding imaginary places where evolution exists... :huh:

You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you think "wild animal" is a single kind?

He didn't create by letting things happen???He spoke and whatever he spoke became a reality because is able to bring into being that which does not exist... Romans 4:17

As the scripture you quoted says, He most certainly created by letting things happen.

I want you to think very carefully.... :unsure: why would God want to create mankind to evolve when he is more interested in their heart and not their flesh?

Why not? God uses natural processes to create pretty much everything.

but it does not mean anything unless you read the entire passage which says that man will some day bear the image of the heavenly man which means that the earthly, perishable man must some day cease in his physical existence... This is the only way that man can inherit the Kingdom of heaven.

I agree.

If you really want a good discussion on this subject you need to be able to look at everything objectively without holding onto your doctrine like it was something that needs to be defended at all costs.

I would say the same to you. You need to look at everything objectively, including the reality of God's creation around you. The Catholic Church made the mistake of thinking their interpretive abilities were so infallible that all discoveries had to line up with them, no exceptions. But as we all know now, they were wrong and the Galileo affair still serves as an embarrassment. You should learn from that history.

It is not God and it is not the bible. These should be more important to a believer than a questionable theology...don't you think??? :huh:

What are you talking about? I'm the one saying God created by letting things happen....which is directly stated in the Bible. You're saying God created by some other means, which isn't in the Bible.

 

[Angelina]

Right. He created them by letting the earth bring forth.

I think that you have missed the style in which the author writes...God speaks things into being and then he creates it. This is what the writer is explaining here...

Right. Remember, you objected to me pointing out that scripture says God created by letting things happen, but here you are quoting the scriptures where God creates by letting things happen!

No...I'm not. I am saying that God speaks and then he creates the very thing he speaks. He doesn't just let it happen he forms it.

"Let the earth bring forth" sounds compatible with evolution to me.

..of course it sounds compatible with evolution to you but not to me....

You didn't answer the question I asked. Do you think "wild animal" is a single kind?

The question is ~ do you think "wild animal is a single kind?[ Do you think that God created one type of wild animal or many types? :huh:

As the scripture you quoted says, He most certainly created by letting things happen.

No...he didn't. God is able to bring into being, that which does not exist, does not mean that he created by letting things happen but rather that he created for his purpose of the created, being in existence for his purpose. Here's an example Matthew 3:9 re: stones. John said that God could raise up children to Abraham from stones....Do you really think that he does things randomly and without thought? He has a purpose and a plan and he does not just let things happen....unless of course, he turns his back on you like he did with Israel on occasion...

Why not? God uses natural processes to create pretty much everything.

Why not? :huh: because God's is Spirit and his heart's desire is that souls are saved and restored back to him through his son's redeeming work on the cross. It's never been about our perishable bodies, our earthly tents...it's always been about our eternity, with or without him.

I would say the same to you. You need to look at everything objectively, including the reality of God's creation around you. The Catholic Church made the mistake of thinking their interpretive abilities were so infallible that all discoveries had to line up with them, no exceptions. But as we all know now, they were wrong and the Galileo affair still serves as an embarrassment. You should learn from that history.

I am not trying to defend my doctrine. As a matter of fact I posted in your thread because I cannot understand why you believe such things... :huh:

 

[River Jordan]

I really don't know where else this can go. We've both been posting scripture that clearly says God created by letting things happen. It's right there...

And God said, "Let there be light"

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night"

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

Over and over and over again it's the same thing....God creates by letting things happen. But when I say that you just respond "No he didn't". If that's your response, I really have nothing to add.

I posted in your thread because I cannot understand why you believe such things.

You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I hope you now understand what I believe and why I believe it.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Genesis 1:26
Let us make man

According to River, "us" made man. Who is this us?

River should probably refrain from discussing scripture and just keep to science falsely so-called.

 

[Angelina]

The Godhead was active throughout creation Genesis 1:2, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17 seen clearly at the beginning of mankind's formation Genesis 1:26. If God were not active throughout his entire creation and just let things happen, he would not have had the foresight for mankind's redemption [post fall] echoed in Genesis 3:15

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Angelina,

You missed the point I think. If "let the earth bring forth" means what Rjver is interpreting it to mean, then she has to also interpret this verse the same way. So, "us" created man. Who is us? How did us create man?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

It's interesting that River has not returned to quote mine and straw man this thread. Perhaps she sees the light.

 

[Dcopymope]

It's interesting that River has not returned to quote mine and straw man this thread. Perhaps she sees the light.

Well, why say such a thing? I thought she saw the light a long time ago, since she claims to be a believer in the word of God? If not, then we'll see if you are right. We'll see if she isn't one of the many of the faith that will, in all likelihood, fall to the coming new evolutionist works based gospel the Antichrist will preach when he arrives. This is my primary concern with cons like evolution, is that it will become a salvation issue.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I don't follow what you are saying. "Seeing the light" in my post refers to her using the term "let" in the book of Genesis to mean "allow" by natural processes of chance. It simply doesn't work in the scripture I referenced.

I think once you deny to Word of God based on man's science, it could already be a salvation issue. That, however is certainly not up to me.

 

[Dcopymope]

I don't follow what you are saying. "Seeing the light" in my post refers to her using the term "let" in the book of Genesis to mean "allow" by natural processes of chance. It simply doesn't work in the scripture I referenced.

I think once you deny to Word of God based on man's science, it could already be a salvation issue. That, however is certainly not up to me.

Oh I see. Well, her interpretation of how the word "let" is used doesn't work in ANY verse concerning the creation account. I showed her that it doesn't even work with the occurrence of plant life. If God truly allowed it all to occur, then Genesis 2 wouldn't have said that he formed all life from the materials of the earth. If God took a backseat to the creation process and let it happen, then what exactly was he "resting" for on the seventh day? That's "rest" that he didn't deserve since nature did all the damn work anyway. So I agree that this in a sense is already a salvation issue, because like I said before, if God didn't do the work of creation 100%, then God cannot claim to have done the work of reconciling that creation unto him with the death and Resurrection of his son on the cross. He cannot claim to redeem what he did not create, what he did not form with his own hands, which means that our redemption is based on our own works and not the work of the Lord on the cross. I cannot claim to have formed a plate full of pancakes with my own two hands if I just sat back and let that pancake batter "evolve" and form itself into good old wholesome pancakes. This shows that theistic evolution is nothing but materialistic baloney and needs to be jettisoned into the bottomless pit with all other heresies.