I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

Was that a "no"?

Try not to switch to teacher mode when a mistake you've made has been exposed. Just adjust your presentation and move on. :up:

Not a mistake. If you think it's a mistake you don't understand how DNA works. Perhaps you only understand protein coding sequences, which do work more like computer code. But those are only a small percentage of human DNA. Most of it doesn't do that, it operates very differently. Those other operations depend on DNA's chemical structure. I'm in teacher mode because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Stripe]

Not a mistake.

Of course it is. You're not even on topic any more.

If you think it's a mistake you don't understand how DNA works.

We're not talking about how DNA works; the question was: Could the code in the genome be represented as 1's and 0's. The subject was compilers because your explanations about computer programming were off.

Perhaps you only understand protein coding sequences, which do work more like computer code. But those are only a small percentage of human DNA. Most of it doesn't do that, it operates very differently. Those other operations depend on DNA's chemical structure.

Which, in theory, could be represented in binary.

Do you deny this?

I'm in teacher mode because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

The clue is you're preaching on a subject I never raised. In fact, I said it was to be excluded. You started talking about it to disguise the fact that you'd made a mistake.

 

[Stripe]

Another way to express this would be: Do you think it is impossible for a computer code to simulate analog so that "there are gradations from on to sort of on and all the way to off"?

 

[Alate_One]

We're not talking about how DNA works; the question was: Could the code in the genome be represented as 1's and 0's. The subject was compilers because your explanations about computer programming were off.

I'm well aware of what compilers do. The fact you insist on insinuating that you know more about pretty well every subject, when you clearly do not, makes me far less likely to engage with you.

The genome isn't just code. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. If you wanted to represent the function of the genome you'd have to model the chemical and physical structure of proteins, RNA and DNA into code and yes ultimately binary. I'm aware aspects of this have already been done so yes it's possible theoretically, though probably not possible with today's technology. Also we don't know enough about how the genome works to model it properly.

But you're basically just modeling physical reality, so it's not going to fit with your next probable "logical" step.

 

[Stripe]

I'm well aware of what compilers do.

Great.

The fact you insist on insinuating that you know more about pretty well every subject, when you clearly do not, makes me far less likely to engage with you.

:yawn:

The genome isn't just code.

We're only talking about the code. I was clear: "There is a fundamental difference between DNA as a code and computer programs, but it's not found in that DNA is more complex."

You decided that this "to be excluded" factor was what we are talking about to avoid the challenge. If you stick with the conversation, we could quickly clear this up.

That's what I'm trying to get across to you.

If you wanted to represent the function of the genome you'd have to model the chemical and physical structure of proteins, RNA and DNA into code and yes ultimately binary.

We'll take that as a "yes."

There is no fundamental difference between the code of DNA and a computer program; it's just fantastically more complex, so that we have no chance of ever understanding it fully.

That this code is implemented in a chemical framework is not part of the conversation.

You're basically just modeling physical reality.

Nope. Code. Information. Non-physical reality. The same with any computer program. A coder can model physical reality, but his toolkit is limited to 1's and 0's, with information being the limiting factor.

 

[Stripe]

It's not going to fit with your next probable "logical" step.

This is impressive: I don't even know what my motivation was. :think:

 

[Alate_One]

We're only talking about the code. I was clear: "There is a fundamental difference between DNA as a code and computer programs, but it's not found in that DNA is more complex."

You could model just the production of proteins directly but that's sort of like modeling car parts and then never actually assembling and testing them. I'm not seeing any purpose in your thought experiment.

Instead of continually going down a rabbit hole post by agonising post, how about you lay out your ideas for once?

 

[Alate_One]

The bone structures found in the back end of whales have to do with whale reproduction.

Hah, I mean pelvic bones could be helpful but really Dorudon has kneecaps and ankle bones so ....

All Marine animals that don’t have paper thin fins, have either cartilage or bone structures within for supporting the appendage; even the ones with paper thin fins have small bones or cartilage that support the appendages.

That just so happen to have five fingers, two forearm bones and a humerus, just like your arm.

Seems like an "anything to avoid the evidence", response.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not seeing any purpose in your thought experiment.

That's awesome.

I don't even see a thought experiment.

Instead of continually going down a rabbit hole post by agonising post, how about you lay out your ideas for once?

Your denial that DNA and computer code can be compared is wrong. You've even admitted as much, possibly because you forgot what the incorrect point was you were trying to make when you started arguing about the aspect of DNA that I said was irrelevant to your error.

This is a perfectly manageable conversation, despite being a little abstract; you've turned it into a quagmire.

 

[Lon]

Here's the thing. It's not me that sees science as so essential. People like you believe science is so important that if Genesis is NOT giving us scientific truth, then we need to throw it away and the whole rest scripture with it. That idea is itself far more dangerous than anything I have said in this thread.

I have to disagree. The scriptures tell us that our faith stands or falls upon the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do think it important to deal with scriptures upon their merit. To wave a hand as if we can 'conveniently' dismiss any of this as 'allegorical' such as the Resurrection, or the # of days God created, would make a house of cards that would all tumble down. I don't want to be the 'intellectual' that tells people what they should and should not hold as scripturally accurate or what is scripturally 'just an expression.' That place is much more dangerous because it then stops relying upon scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ for truth, but rather looks to one'self as to what is true. Our age is rife with relative truth claims and people that stand for nothing.


When I was young, a Russian pastor challenged us with facing death for our faith. They had to literally deny or go to prison and face death and torture. They chose the latter. Whatever truth someone dies for, even if we see it as 'misplaced' it must be dealt with in dignity and relevancy. I have a couple of points in this Faith that I hold differently, and with a bit of trepidation from the rest of the body. These are harder for me to make any kind of waves over. I know the problems such can cause.

Well there's the option of turn your brain off and accept whatever interpretation *insert TOL poster* believes.

I do have one degree in education, but the other is in Bible so I've a bit more at stake in this discussion. It isn't what any poster believes, but what most of Christendom believes. We have to look at doctrinal statements, creeds, and council discussions on my side. Whatever any particular scientist says isn't particularly part of that discussion, but we do look at what is being said. We are not clueless about science claims against doctrine, but we don't move quickly. Such takes more than a webpage. From past experience, it takes councils. The Chicago Statement of faith is an example.

I believe God has given us a mind for a reason and the ability to do science, which is His creation. I think our interpretation of scripture can be flawed and even can change due to scientific and historical evidence clarifying what may be cultural context, vs. the actual point of a passage. Genesis was never intended to answer how God made the earth, it was answering the purpose and function of creation. My current church is working through Genesis and they don't even agree with 6 days is it, just shut up and accept it.

They just shut up and accept what? :idunno:

 

[mtwilcox]

Hah, I mean pelvic bones could be helpful but really Dorudon has kneecaps and ankle bones so ....

That just so happen to have five fingers, two forearm bones and a humerus, just like your arm.

Seems like an "anything to avoid the evidence", response.

You know the Dorudon is not a whale; they have totally different teeth among other completely different anatomy... Also, the appendages which you Claim are remnants of legs from a previous evolutionary state, are obviously this animal’s bone structures that support it’s pelvic fins, which is a feature commonly found in marine life that help them steer through their environment.

Just look at this Plesiosaur’s pelvic fins; while they are more prominent than the pelvic fins on the Dorudon, it’s pretty obvious this anatomical feature is common in marine animals:

Hey, you don’t think that Plesiosaur were the precursor to the Dorudon do you?!? Oh my gosh! Call the Smithsonian Institute; we just discovered a new link in whale evolution!!! See how much bigger the Plesiosaur pelvic fin is than the Dorudon? That means it must be the precursor to the Dorudon!!! Silly Evols! Tricks are for kids.

In all “teleost” (bony) marine animals that have pelvic fins, you see these same bone structures you find on the Dorudon.

Evolutionist claims about these pelvic fins found on Dorudon being anything but functional pelvic fins are being dishonest, or don’t have any knowledge of bony marine life.

Yes, I’m pretty sure most animals on earth that have appendages, have five digits in their appendages; can you think of one that does not?

You claim common ancestry to explain this fact, and I say a common creator.

The fact is, evolutionists believe obvious lies; that say those bones used in reproduction for whales were once legs, though there is no proof of this; which shows evols will falsify information to try and give credence to a belief in which there is no proof for: in fact, there is proof to the contrary.

In your opinion:
Why would evolutionists go as far as to falsify findings to try to prove their theory?

You claim you love Jesus; but, do you believe he is the Son of God, sent here by God?

If you believe a portion of the Bible as historical fact, and dismiss what is said in genesis about God creating animals in full form; how does that make you feel?

Since there is no proof of evolution, how is it you don’t believe God created Man as a walking talking human being, and that he created whales and birds as they appear today from the very beginning of creation?
I mean, is there another option that I have not seen or heard of?

=M=

 

[Gary K]

I would just like to point out that all of Alate's objections to accepting the Bible as true can be found originating back in the late 1700s. They arose out of the French revolution which was entirely anti-God. They were accepted by the German theologians in the Lutheran church there. Remember that the Lutheran church was the state controlled church. Thus, politicians and state administrators were the people responsible for hiring pastors, theologians, etc.... This means that secularists were responsible for all the hires inside the church. Thus academic skills were greatly preferred over spirituality, over faith in God. That put all the people hired in positions of giving lip service to something they didn't really believe in.

I have posted links to the book I'll be quoting from before on this site. What I'm going to show is how Alate is using the same arguments against believing God's word that were used by skeptics more than 200 years ago. And I'll point out the methods the skeptics of that day used, which are identical to Alate's.

This first quote will show both reasons why skepticsm entered, and how it was disseminated within the church.

Unhappily, in the case before us, the German church was a national establishment. The public authorities patronized the church, because they supposed its influence would give stability to political institutions. Princes paid an external respect to the Bible because they appreciated the commandment,-"Render to CÊsar the things which are CÊsar's," rather than that, which with equal clearness says, "and unto God, the things which are God's." Both in the Protestant and Catholic states civil rulers exercised a control in the appointment of preachers, pastors and professors of theology. Thus a door was opened for the admission of unconverted men into religious offices. While the magistracy insisted on high literary qualifications in all candidates for the ministry, and demanded those still more elevated
5
from men who aspired to theological professorships, the most important of all requisites, vital piety, attracted but little attention. The results are obvious. Men, who were accurately acquainted with the sciences, familiar with the varied topics of biblical literature, with the history, languages, customs and antiquities of the East, might be found occupying the station of teachers in theology, though destitute of the first elements of religious experience, and strangers to the power of godliness. Such men as they knew nothing of the influence of the Spirit on the soul, despised and ridiculed the very language by which God describes that influence, as the mystic phraseology of enthusiasm.
It could not be expected that such guides would quietly acquiesce in the popular belief that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. Disliking the moral restraint which the Bible imposes, so long as it is regarded as a revelation from heaven; chafed in the false position into which they had blindly thrown themselves; often obliged, especially if pastors, to perform duties entirely foreign to their tastes, and yet fettered by the force of public opinion, and restrained from an open avowal of their sentiments, they were compelled to wait for a more convenient season, when their principles might be exhibited, without hazard, in the face of the world. Before that season had arrived, the metaphysical skepticism of Hume, and other authors of the English deistical school, had found its way to the continent. The writings of these authors attracted the attention of numerous readers in the ranks of the German ministry. They were often translated
6
and published with pretended refutations, in which the author allowed himself to defend truth with sophistical arguments, and thus effectually betrayed the cause which he appeared to defend. The unwary reader was led to suppose that what he had heretofore deemed to be truth, was error which could not be logically sustained. In some cases, these writers asserted that a proposition might be true according to the principles of sound philosophy or metaphysics, yet, when examined theologically, it was very questionable. The reader was left to infer that sound philosophy and religious truth could hold no alliance-that Christianity was not based on facts-that a sincere Christian, of course, could hold his position only by believing without evidence, and at the very best, must be but a sorry philosopher. At a later period, the productions of the French encyclopedists obtained an extensive circulation in Germany. The lively style and sparkling wit of these writers enchanted many of the Germans, who had hitherto been content to plod along the beaten path usually taken by men, who confine their attention to plain matters of fact. The want of solid thought, so characteristic of the French school, was overlooked in the admiration paid to eloquent phraseology and flights of imagination. At this disastrous era, vital piety was rapidly declining in Germany. With the exception of a few favored spots, the life-giving influence of the Holy Spirit was hardly felt. In the church, the form of godliness existed, but its power was gone. German pastors, instead of searching the Scriptures with prayer, that they might learn and follow the Divine will, toiled in composing elegant disquisitions on some point of ethics.

Look familiar to the way arguments against the scriptures are presented here? Pretend to believe but disseminate doubt.

Making no distinction between
8
the corruptions of the Papacy and the religion of the Saviour, they assailed both with the same blind fury. Those who could wield the pen, deluged Europe with pamphlets and volumes filled with the bitterest attacks on Divine Revelation. The ruling powers of the new republic, which sprang to light like the prophet's gourd, however inconsistent with themselves in everything else, remained constant in their enmity to the word of God. The unsparing boldness of French skeptics was communicated to "kindred spirits" among the more cautious Germans. Public sentiment received a shock from the revolution, which went far to destroy its conservative power. Lax sentiments on the subject of religion were hardly considered as a reproach to the clergy: still, while the members of this order received salaries for the avowed purpose of teaching the truths of the Bible, some respect for appearances must be preserved-a sort of conventional decorum, in the treatment of that book, was yet necessary. The time had not arrived when a religious instructor might announce that he believed in no other religion than that of nature. Some latitude might be allowed, on the ground that though he was not a believer of Luther's school, yet he was a rational Christian, as might naturally be expected of one, who lived in "the age of light." He might be a skeptic in heart and life, so long as he pretended to be a disciple of Christ. He must profess to believe the Bible, while he was allowed, by every art of fallacious criticism, to explain away all those doctrines, which hold a vital alliance with the redemption of man. However revolting such
9
hypocrisy may seem to men of integrity; in Germany, multitudes were found, men of varied condition, possessing talents which gave currency to their opinions, who would stoop to such hypocrisy. By acting thus, they have given a memorable lesson to the world. They have proved, that in the cause of divine truth, genius and learning are worse than useless, if their possessor is destitute of an upright and humble heart-if he does not fear God and tremble at his word.

Notice in the following quote that atheism and pantheism were accepted as "liberal Christianity" and revelation despised.

In the writings of Fichte and Forberg, and some others of the transcendental school, it would have received the name of atheism, in our land. In the hands of other artists, it has assumed the shape of the Pantheism of the Greek philosophers. Now it is "liberal Christianity," or "Rationalism"-again it is marked by an icy indifference to all revelation. Like the demons of Milton, its votaries, turning from the promised land lit up with the beams of the sun of righteousness, survey their congenial domain-
"A frozen continent Lies dark and wild, beat with perpetual storms Of whirlwind and dire hail."

Notice the attacks on inspiration in the following quotes.

It might naturally be expected, that, in the war waged against the holy writings, the inspiration of the prophets would be the earliest point of attack. If it be questionable whether they predicted events, (which they continually claim to have done,) we are driven, on the most favorable supposition, to class them with the dreaming enthusiasts of later ages, who have been deluded by imagination into a belief, that they uttered the word of the Lord, while, in truth, he was far from them. As the Saviour and the apostles often appeal to prophecy as the infallible truth of Jehovah,
11
it will follow, that they did this, not because such was the fact, but merely that they might not shock the prejudices of the Jews, with whom a confidence in the inspiration of the prophets was a fundamental article of faith

Multitudes, who styled themselves Christians, were led to believe that the only inspiration actually possessed by the Jewish seers was that which is claimed by all poetic writers. The celebrated W. Gesenius, as we have been told by one who heard his lectures on Isaiah, often compared the inspiration of that prophet and the inspiration of the Grecian Homer. In point of genius and strength of imagination, he represented the two poets as nearly on a level, though he would coolly remark, that as Isaiah was compelled to use a language less copious and harmonious than that of Homer, it was not surprising that the palm must be awarded to the latter. He would not allow, that the Hebrew had any more prescience of the future, than the Greek. He especially
12
labored to impress his large auditory with the idea, that inspiration, in the sense of the older theologians, was a thing impossible in itself. Passages, which in former times were supposed to have a marked reference to the Messiah, or to the glories of his kingdom, according to Gesenius were merely patriotic aspirations, couched in glowing language, which Isaiah never imagined could be applied to anything higher than a splendid reign of some crowned mortal, and a prosperous state of the Hebrew common-wealth. Neologists have called in question the miracles of the Old and New Testament, explained away, or resolved them into attempts of mystagogues to deceive the spectators, by means similar to those employed by jugglers, who can produce effects, which may seem supernatural to those not versed in legerdemain. In its progress, neology has not been confined to Protestants. Several Catholic writers have given sad proof that they too have imbibed this subtle poison, though from the rigid authority exercised by the Papal hierarchy, they have been less bold in expressing their sentiments. Among these, may be numbered J. Jahn, late Professor of Oriental Languages and Biblical Archaeology in the University of Vienna. Occasion will soon be presented for noticing some of his views, which have been borrowed, adopted and advocated by American divines.

They forget that the great mass of their hearers are more familiar with biblical phraseology, as a medium for religious thought, than with any other, and that holy men of old,
14
who preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, employed a plain, unadorned style, when urging eternal truths on the minds of men; that in this, they followed the example of Him, whose discourses are a perfect model of simplicity. The preachers to whom we refer, would do well to recollect that the Saviour and his apostles made a free use of quotations from "Moses and the prophets and the book of Psalms." Experience shows that men readily and naturally quote those authors, whose language most frequently mingles with their trains of thought, though the reverse is the fact in reference to writers who are only consulted occasionally.
In proof of the correctness of the portrait of Neology, which we have sketched, we shall adduce some testimony from the well-known letters of Professor Stuart, addressed to Dr. Channing, in 1819. In this work, the Professor (page 442) makes the following remarks, many of which, time has fully verified in reference to some American theologians, although we are not aware that Dr. Channing arrived at "the conclusion," which the professor here noticed. "I am well satisfied," says the professor, "that the course of reasoning in which you have embarked, and the principles now in question, by which you explain away the divinity of the Saviour, must lead most men, who approve of them, eventually to the conclusion that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obedience."-"Deeming what you have publicly taught them, to be true, viz., that it is no crime to believe with Mr. Belsham," who declares, that the Scriptures are not the word of
15
God; feeling the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do feel it,) of violating the rules of interpretation, in order to make the apostles speak, as in their apprehension they ought to speak; and unable to reconcile what the apostles say, with their own views; will it not be natural to throw off the restraints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply on the ground on which they place any other writings of a moral and religious nature?" "For myself, I regard it as more desirable, in many points of view, that the authority of the Scriptures should at once be cast off, and its claims to divine inspiration rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be introduced, as to make the Scriptures speak, against their obvious meaning, whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine authority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would fain believe, in the present day of light and examination. Such a state of things may pass away with the generation who act in it. But it is a more difficult matter to purge away the stain which Christianity may contract by violated laws of interpretation. Those who do thus violate these laws, may obtain, and hold, for a long time, great influence over the mass of people, who are not accustomed to examine, in a critical manner, the minor points of theology. If opponents to this method of interpretation, lift up the voice of warning, they may not be heard. They are liable to the, imputation of bigotry, or ignorance, or illiberality. But when men professedly cast off their respect to the authority of the Scriptures,
16
the case becomes different, and the great body of plain and sober people will revolt.

Here in these few paragraphs we see the origins of Alate's skepticism and how she has used the same reasoning as those who refused to accept scripture as authoritative. Anyone who does that does not love or respect God. They are working at cross purposes to God.

All of these quotes come from a booklet written by Nathaniel N. Whiting titled The Origins and Nature of Neology. Neology is just another word for rationalism.

I post this because I see it as the crux of the issue involved. There will never be agreement on the data for the enemies of God will always reject anything that leads to God. Therefore the best argument against this entire thread is to show the origins of the objections to scripture and the deception behind them.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes, I’m pretty sure most animals on earth that have appendages, have five digits in their appendages; can you think of one that does not?

Horses and Birds being obvious answers. Of course their ancestors had 5 digits.

And no not all animals with appendages have five digits, you seem to forget arthropods, which don't have digits at all and have a different base number of appendages.

You claim common ancestry to explain this fact, and I say a common creator.

There's no functional reason to have fingers in flippers. Fish do without it just fine. Why do whales breathe air? They're at constant risk of drowning.

The fact is, evolutionists believe obvious lies; that say those bones used in reproduction for whales were once legs, though there is no proof of this; which shows evols will falsify information to try and give credence to a belief in which there is no proof for: in fact, there is proof to the contrary.

They're very obviously former legs. We have fossil whales where the other parts of the legs are present. One of them is in the OP. Why does that whale have kneecaps and ankles etc, if they weren't at one point legs?

Even when I was a young earth creationist, the evolution of whales seemed the most plausible of any evolutionary pattern. The return of vertebrates to the sea has been repeated over and over (Manatees, Ichthyosaurs, sea turtles, seals, penguins). Apparently it's not an especially difficult evolutionary transition.

In your opinion:
Why would evolutionists go as far as to falsify findings to try to prove their theory?

They're not. Creationists however, lie and distort evidence all the time.

You claim you love Jesus; but, do you believe he is the Son of God, sent here by God?

Yes.

If you believe a portion of the Bible as historical fact, and dismiss what is said in genesis about God creating animals in full form; how does that make you feel?

Because Genesis isn't the same genre of writing as the gospels, same with psalms and proverbs. You don't interpret the entire Bible the same way and neither do I.

Since there is no proof of evolution,

You don't prove anything in science, but evolution is one of the best supported scientific ideas out there.

how is it you don’t believe God created Man as a walking talking human being, and that he created whales and birds as they appear today from the very beginning of creation?
I mean, is there another option that I have not seen or heard of?

I think there are some pretty clear contextual clues in the garden of eden story that tell you that Adam and Eve and their children weren't the only people on earth at the time. Lot's wife, statements about "everyone who finds Cain" will kill him etc.

 

[Right Divider]

Horses and Birds being obvious answers. Of course their ancestors had 5 digits.

:french:

 

[mtwilcox]

Horses and Birds being obvious answers. Of course their ancestors had 5 digits.

And no not all animals with appendages have five digits, you seem to forget arthropods, which don't have digits at all and have a different base number of appendages.

There's no functional reason to have fingers in flippers. Fish do without it just fine. Why do whales breathe air? They're at constant risk of drowning.

They're very obviously former legs. We have fossil whales where the other parts of the legs are present. One of them is in the OP. Why does that whale have kneecaps and ankles etc, if they weren't at one point legs?

Even when I was a young earth creationist, the evolution of whales seemed the most plausible of any evolutionary pattern. The return of vertebrates to the sea has been repeated over and over (Manatees, Ichthyosaurs, sea turtles, seals, penguins). Apparently it's not an especially difficult evolutionary transition.

They're not. Creationists however, lie and distort evidence all the time.

Yes.

Because Genesis isn't the same genre of writing as the gospels, same with psalms and proverbs. You don't interpret the entire Bible the same way and neither do I.

You don't prove anything in science, but evolution is one of the best supported scientific ideas out there.

I think there are some pretty clear contextual clues in the garden of eden story that tell you that Adam and Eve and their children weren't the only people on earth at the time. Lot's wife, statements about "everyone who finds Cain" will kill him etc.

Check out my above reply... I added a few things during the time I didn’t realize you were replying...

Mainly the fact about pelvic fins in bony marine animals.

=M=

Wait up!!!

What do you mean by “you don’t prove anything in science”???

How do you define the term science as you use it?

I define science as “observable truth”... which is proven, because it can be observed.

Like if I were to make statements about proven things in science, I would say something like; there are stars, the planet earth is not flat, people cannot breath under water, the appendages found on the Dorudon that you say are legs are obviously pelvic fins... and so on, and so forth.

I mean, maybe you don’t or can’t prove anything in your theory there is no proof for; but actual science is all about observable proofs and truth.


Pelvic Fins:

https://people.sju.edu/~egrogan/BearGulch/pages_fish_other/fish_parts_pelvic.html

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think

It's a good thing the following is just your opinion.

But it's still wrong.

there are some pretty clear contextual clues in the garden of eden story that tell you that Adam and Eve

The only Persons other than Adam and Eve in the Garden was the Triune God.

God made man, then He made a help meet for him. That's it. Eve had Cain, Abel, and Seth after she and Adam were kicked out of the Garden.

and their children weren't the only people on earth at the time.

Adding to scripture because doing so would make it fit your beliefs is not only wrong and a bad idea, but it shows how desperate you are to have your beliefs validated, because if you're wrong, then all the time you've spent on building up your current beliefs will have been for nothing.

Lot's wife,

What does Lot's wife have anything to do with the Creation account and Fall in Genesis 1-3?

statements about "everyone who finds Cain" will kill him etc.

You think that Adam and Eve stopped having children after having Cain, Abel, and Seth, or didn't have any other than them?

 

[mtwilcox]

Wait a late one!!!
I didn’t get to show you the pelvic fin in the Coelacanth!!!

=M=

 

[Alate_One]

:french:

You can ridicule it all you like. It's reality.

Notice which finger horses have left? :chuckle:

 

[mtwilcox]

You can ridicule it all you like. It's reality.

Notice which finger horses have left? :chuckle:

LoL!

I like you.

:thumb:

=M=

 

[mtwilcox]

You can ridicule it all you like. It's reality.

Notice which finger horses have left? :chuckle:

Oops... double post; dang iPhone!

It’s interesting you believe horse feet came from five digit creatures; do you ave any line of logical proof behind this assertion?

=M=

Until next time; I’m outa here, gonna go make some dinner.

Have a great night!

Maybe try to answer a few of my original posts questions of the evolution is a religion thread....

Have you ever considered it odd that human babies are so much more reliant on their parents for so much longer than chimps, or other animals for that matter...? Why do you think that is?