- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 04 2013,00:01) terraricca,
I believe that angels pre-existed man, and scripture does not exclude that angels may have had some role on our world (not that I believe it, but I do not want to add to scripture by claiming something scripture does not mention).As to my claim that females were born first, it seems to fit the facts we are given in scripture better, but can neither be proven or dis-proven from scriptures (to the best of my knowledge).
Wm
Quote As to my claim that females were born first, it seems to fit the facts we are given in scripture better, but can neither be proven or dis-proven from scriptures (to the best of my knowledge). this I am incline to believe because nature it self shows that many mammals have also many wife's or Harem for one male
this could count for many reproduction by only one male or son of Adam that left for his own pasture
Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 03 2013,18:58) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 03 2013,09:39) I think the idea is that there is a scripture that says that God told Adam to repopulate the Earth. He said the same thing to Noah I think. A further thought or idea are the 24 Elders that are seated around the throne.
Scripture says that there are 2 men that represent all the Earth. So 24 elders could refer to 12 ages/worlds on Earth or planets.
Of course that is reading way too much into what the text says. But the possibility still remains I think.
Further speculation explains that the sons of God came down to Earth and saw that the women of men were fair and had offspring with them, had to be men, but were men from other civilizations or worlds of men that never fell. They came here and tampered with our world and those sons were reprimanded by God.
this is far, far ,into imagination, this would do awaywith many scriptures ,and make God seem to be a story teller rather than God almighty ,like in the wizard of OZ,
is this what you have come to believe after your studies in scriptures
this is not strengthening of your faith ,it would be leaving the faith ,and what are the scriptures to back up those theories
Yes it is.However, my point was that such a thing is possible. There is so much that we don't know and there are scriptures scattered here and there that hint at things.
I guess we cannot know for sure. But whatever the case, the truth is likely to be quite bizarre from our point of reference.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 04 2013,06:19) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 03 2013,18:58) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 03 2013,09:39) I think the idea is that there is a scripture that says that God told Adam to repopulate the Earth. He said the same thing to Noah I think. A further thought or idea are the 24 Elders that are seated around the throne.
Scripture says that there are 2 men that represent all the Earth. So 24 elders could refer to 12 ages/worlds on Earth or planets.
Of course that is reading way too much into what the text says. But the possibility still remains I think.
Further speculation explains that the sons of God came down to Earth and saw that the women of men were fair and had offspring with them, had to be men, but were men from other civilizations or worlds of men that never fell. They came here and tampered with our world and those sons were reprimanded by God.
this is far, far ,into imagination, this would do awaywith many scriptures ,and make God seem to be a story teller rather than God almighty ,like in the wizard of OZ,
is this what you have come to believe after your studies in scriptures
this is not strengthening of your faith ,it would be leaving the faith ,and what are the scriptures to back up those theories
Yes it is.However, my point was that such a thing is possible. There is so much that we don't know and there are scriptures scattered here and there that hint at things.
I guess we cannot know for sure. But whatever the case, the truth is likely to be quite bizarre from our point of reference.
t8agreed, but if you pay attention to those head bones that they present to be our ancestors they look like apes head of today
Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 03 2013,14:57) ok,so what you imply now is that it was not a man but ape like ,type extinct years ago
Let's say “homo erectus” was already in the world, from God's earlier creating efforts.Then, He decided to make “homo sapiens” (which means “man, wise”), starting with Adam.
So although humanoid beings were already there, Adam was first of the “wise men”, or “homo sapiens”.
And I wouldn't say “extinct”, but more like “assimilated”. We know that Cain found a wife from these “others”. Perhaps by breeding with the homo erectus, the homo sapiens slowly “assimilated” them into their own species, throughout many years.
t8
all what men as seen through the eyes of the spirit or in the spirit about heaven shows that God as created a assembly of beings to look after everything in heaven ,and many so are servants of Gods plan of creating a universe run by love ,providing that you understand Gods love
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 04 2013,06:26) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 03 2013,14:57) ok,so what you imply now is that it was not a man but ape like ,type extinct years ago
Let's say “homo erectus” was already in the world, from God's earlier creating efforts.Then, He decided to make “homo sapiens” (which means “man, wise”), starting with Adam.
So although humanoid beings were already there, Adam was first of the “wise men”, or “homo sapiens”.
And I wouldn't say “extinct”, but more like “assimilated”. We know that Cain found a wife from these “others”. Perhaps by breeding with the homo erectus, the homo sapiens slowly “assimilated” them into their own species, throughout many years.
so God did not created Adam out of the dust of the earth ,and did not make an garden in Eden ,were he put him in ,and God did not created Eve out of Adam rib,
and so it was possible that men could procreate with apes I ,read that God say that all were reproduce by their own seeds according to their own nature,so according to you Adam was the same nature of the apes
I believe you are lost in this ,it is true that God as made many things alike or similar to what in essence is his creation ,either big or small ,but laws and nature of things can not be mixed ,this was the reason for the flood ,
just as all chemicals are found on the earth in nature but never under the concentration that men as made them to be ,and this for their own destruction ,
so I totally disagree on this view of yours,
the story of Cain ,is that he took one or more of his sisters ,
and it was the wild giant beast that he was afraid of ,that would kill him,(or that God would use to kill him ,for what he had done to his own brother.)
I strongly do not believe in the evolution of man as they say ,it stinks, men made story, and many will be deceived by it .
on things I do not understand or do not know ,I stand still until I been given the understanding and true knowledge of it ,
No Pierre,
I say God DID create Adam (homo sapiens) from the dust of the earth. He was the FIRST homo sapien ever created. But before that time, there already were homo erectus, who were NOT homo sapiens, and were therefore NOT what the Hebrews called “adam” (mankind).
As for evolution, it is a known fact, Pierre. Creationists don't argue against evolution itself, but against the evolutionists' claims that evolution, in and of itself, explains how life got its start on planet earth.
Things do evolve over time, Pierre. Nothing about this fact goes against anything in the scriptures.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 05 2013,23:16) No Pierre, I say God DID create Adam (homo sapiens) from the dust of the earth. He was the FIRST homo sapien ever created. But before that time, there already were homo erectus, who were NOT homo sapiens, and were therefore NOT what the Hebrews called “adam” (mankind).
As for evolution, it is a known fact, Pierre. Creationists don't argue against evolution itself, but against the evolutionists' claims that evolution, in and of itself, explains how life got its start on planet earth.
Things do evolve over time, Pierre. Nothing about this fact goes against anything in the scriptures.
MikeGe 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
Ge 1:25 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.all according to their KINDS
so how many type of ape were there
Gorilla's could be very big in those days, may be their was some type in between of a gorilla and a man but would still be an animal .because after Adam went through of given names to all HE COULD NOT FIND OR DID NOT SEE ANYTHING LIKE HIM
and I do not discuss the process of creation, this I believe no man knows only all are guessing ,
Mike,
I disagree while i agree there is variations within species, evolution requires one species to change into another.Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 06 2013,00:01) Mike,
I disagree while i agree there is variations within species, evolution requires one species to change into another.Wm
this is one step forwardQuote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 05 2013,12:01) Mike,
I disagree while i agree there is variations within species, evolution requires one species to change into another.Wm
From Dictionary.com:
Evolution1. a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them
It seems you are considering the bolded part above to be the ONLY meaning of the word. I refer to the unbolded part in the definition above. The site I used also lists examples such as the evolution of modern art, the evolution of a language, and the evolution of the airplane.
Wm, do you agree that certain animals, over time, grow larger or smaller – depending on their environment? I consider this to be “evolution” as well.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2013,10:05) Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 05 2013,12:01) Mike,
I disagree while i agree there is variations within species, evolution requires one species to change into another.Wm
From Dictionary.com:
Evolution1. a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them
It seems you are considering the bolded part above to be the ONLY meaning of the word. I refer to the unbolded part in the definition above. The site I used also lists examples such as the evolution of modern art, the evolution of a language, and the evolution of the airplane.
Wm, do you agree that certain animals, over time, grow larger or smaller – depending on their environment? I consider this to be “evolution” as well.
Absolutely, within their “kind”, my issue was that in stating support for this less realized definition of “evolution” (with no clarification) at least to many, evolution carries with it the belief that all life “evolved” as species changed into other species. So no issue.Wm
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 08 2013,08:05) Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 05 2013,12:01) Mike,
I disagree while i agree there is variations within species, evolution requires one species to change into another.Wm
From Dictionary.com:
Evolution1. a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them
It seems you are considering the bolded part above to be the ONLY meaning of the word. I refer to the unbolded part in the definition above. The site I used also lists examples such as the evolution of modern art, the evolution of a language, and the evolution of the airplane.
Wm, do you agree that certain animals, over time, grow larger or smaller – depending on their environment? I consider this to be “evolution” as well.
Mikeyou are opening a window so wide that the earth can flow trough it ,
but we do not talk about ,the changes in culture, or graphics, or the work place ,or the environment, or the houses models, or cars, and what not ,
was this the understanding of the birth of the theory of evolution
as far I have learned it in school we suppose to be coming from fish and so on ,this is quite different than the change into hand shaver to electric shaver ,
it seems you pic your own judgment as to what is said in scriptures ;,,,”according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.””
so is fish the same kind than man
may be I have it wrongQuote (terraricca @ Jan. 07 2013,21:18) so is fish the same kind than man
No Pierre, fish is not the same kind as man.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 09 2013,06:34) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 07 2013,21:18) so is fish the same kind than man
No Pierre, fish is not the same kind as man.
but the theory says that we come out of the water and then grew leggs etc,,,,,,,,,Darwin logic or is their an update to his theoryof cause this as taken billions of years
Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors,[1] and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.[2]
I do understand if you are now see it as a sectional view ,and separate all into varieous fields then we can see that their is some changes that occur within all different fields ,but those changes are so small ,and irrelevant to the spieces kind
it is just like the changes in the housing industry in the western world those have changed because of some new process applications but the essenciel house (roof,walls openings ,door ,floor ,remain the base ,I do not see evolution in this ,actualy I see more slavery to maintain it .
Pierre,
Didn't you read the definition of “evolution” that I posted?
1. a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations
Do you agree that what is described above actually happens?
Mike
all those changes have a direct cause because of the past 120 years of men actions on the earth ,the industrial revolution ,the changes in making and control medication,and to distribute poison to land water and the air ,we are creating our own destructive ways of evolution in all fields ,including the financial ,:D
Actually this might clear things up a bit.
Natural selection is true and both Evolutionists and Creationists agree on it.
If my memory serves me correctly, Natural Selection was first proposed by a man who believed in God who believed that it served to keep the best of the species. So that when the environment changed, the species would survive because there would be variation that would support the species. However, Darwin took the theory and proposed an opposite conclusion to it.
I copied this post from the Skeptics Area. It might help. It is about a man called Blythe who fist proposed Natural Selection under the title, Artificial Selection. He proposed that the theory helped species to survive, not to change into other species. He doesn't get much credit today because Darwin seems to have won the limelight.
===================================It appears that many thought Charles Darwin was an intellectual leech who took others ideas and called them his own. Is this true of Darwin? Did he plagiarize the work of others? Even if he did, are his conclusions sound or just a belief? The following quotes perhaps says it all.
Quote Blyth recognised that Darwin had been feeding from him, as from so many others, like some intellectual leech – Andrew Bradbury. Quote “Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion” – Francis Hitching
Or is it a case of sour grapes because he got the credit instead of them.The following is taken from these web sites, which have citations if you care to look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.htmlOne forgotten chapter in history, neglected by most of Darwin's biographers, concerns a gentleman by the name of Edward Blyth. Blyth was a chemist in South London, a year younger than Darwin, but unlike Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth had not been born into wealth. His father died when he was ten, leaving his widowed mother to raise four children. She managed to send her eldest son, Edward, to school where he excelled in chemistry and natural history, spending his every spare moment at the British Museum.
Edward Blyth wrote three articles on variation, discussing the effects of artificial selection and describing the process in nature (later called natural selection) as restoring organisms in the wild to their archetype (rather than forming new species). However, he never actually used the term “natural selection”. These articles were published in The Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837. There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species he wrote “Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, …”
Darwin's own copy of Magazine of Natural History in 1837 showed that he made use of Blyth's paper of that year, the same year when he first claimed to have come up with the idea of natural selection on his own, wherein Blyth had written essentially the same basic doctrine that Darwin took credit for. Eiseley wrote, “At that moment, probably in 1837, the Origin was born.”
Francis Hitching, an evolutionist, wrote: “Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion” i.e. the denial of the miraculous and of special creation. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all.
William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813 (as had many others, however it was Blyth's writing that Darwin clearly was impressed by during his voyage, and it was Blyth who saw natural selection in a creationist context) but Darwin claimed that he was unfamiliar with Well's writings at the time of the original publication of The Origin of Species.
Later on, after being brought to task by certain individuals for taking credit for an idea that was not his own, Darwin gave Wells credit for the idea; however Wells originated nothing novel either: as noted, the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time.
Janet Browne wrote of Darwin: “There was a sliver of ice inside enabling him to make the most of all the advantages he possessed and the circumstances in which he found himself.” (Janet Browne is a noted historian. According to one critic of this chapter she must have loathed Darwin, or is it only creationists that loathe him when they speak critically of him? Alfred Russel Wallace was a colleague of Darwin's who, prior to Darwin's presentation of his paper before a group of scientists shortly before the publication of the Origin, had written a nearly identical paper on evolution, at least in substance. After Darwin read Wallace's paper he hurriedly published his own and read his paper first. Years later, Wallace refused to go to Darwin's funeral.
Samuel Butler was a contemporary of Darwin and was the grandson of Darwin's old headmaster at Shrewsbury. He had been a former admirer of him until he read the work of earlier evolutionists like Lamarck and Buffon, then he launched an attack on Darwin's early claim to having originated his theories on his own, first in a book titled Evolution Old and New published in May of 1879, then in a letter to the Athenaeum on the 31st of January, 1880. Later he renewed the attack in another book titled Unconcious Memory, in which he documented Darwin's “borrowing” much of his work from others. (There are legitimate axes to grind, and Butler definitely had one. Blyth was relatively unknown, died in obscurity and poverty, and his theories were from an entirely different outlook, creationism, not evolution, thus Butler had no ax to grind with Blyth).
World famous geneticist and anthropologist C.D. Darlington, an evolutionist (I have put his credentials here because his qualifications definitely carry weight, and should counter the tired evolutionist argument that no serious scientists question Darwin), although he doesn't come right out and say it, still comes about as close as one could get to accusing Darwin of plagiarism without actually spelling it out. He said that Darwin “was able to put across his ideas not so much because of his scientific integrity, but because of his opportunism, his equivocation and his lack of historical sense. Though his admirers will not like to believe it, he accomplished his revolution by personal weakness and strategic talent more than by scientific virtue” (Did Darlington, a noted evolutionist, have “an ax to grind” with Darwin? Apparently so, and a legitimate one.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
