A coin rubbing?
Posted on 05/10/2006 9:38:22 PM PDT by Tim Long
You've got it backwards, friend. Comfort was offering the banana as proof of God's design. Yet all of its nice characteristics that he was appealing to as proof, i.e. its shape, easy-to-peal wrapper, biodegradability, digestability, etc, are all the result of human breeding. No wild banana has any of them. The nice characteristics of the banana are the result of human action, not God's design.
All you're talking about is micro-evolution or Variation.
Uh, no. It's more than just variation. You will not find a wild banana that looks anything like a domesticated banana. In fact, most people who see a wild banana don't recognize it as a banana. They're barely edible. The domesticated banana's characteristics do not fall within the natural range of variation of wild bananas. Human breeding led to NEW variaties of banana that are wholly unlike what is found in the wild. To use the language of the AIG people, breeding led to NEW information.
Variation is not in dispute. And variation doesn't support Macro-Evolution.
No, but the appearance of NEW varieties that were never seen before as a result of selection (natural or human)DOES support Macro-evolution.
So you're Ok with the notion that Jesus' mother's ancestors were monkeys? In spite of the clear teaching of scripture? Yeah, I guess you're right, one ought not argue about what words mean. After all, maybe there is no salvation, and maybe Jesus dosen't save. /s/
No. But who ever said the Blessed Virgin's ancestors were monkeys? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
Was she descended from non-human primates? Yes, just like everyone else.
In spite of the clear teaching of scripture?
Show me where the scriptures clearly teach that man has no common ancestry with beasts.
"I think we may be arguing the same point. The ultimate goal is salvation through Jesus. If that be the case, why argue about the meaning of days in Genesis and other arbitrary factoids that people some folks seem to dwell on. I am not trying to minimize the scripture, but people have gleaned individual quotes out of the bible to serve their own purposes. These motivations were usually those of man and not those of G_d. Slavery would be a good example.
I have enjoyed our discussion thus far."
Heheheh...I didn't realize we were arguing, thought we were just rattlin'! haha
I don't disagree with that logic on salvation. The important thing is that it happened. Or even that man uses some passages for their own agenda. I think Jesus' point on slavery is more in relation of obedience (especially when many people of the day sold themselves in slavery) and how that translates to a form of obedience to God. Much in the same way we are commanded to be obedient to God, to parents, etc. and turn the other cheek if offended. Obedience to the things of men (like complying with civil law, tax laws, etc) is a reflection of our obedience and commitment to God--because that what He desires.
I think the idea of arguing on points about Genesis is important because it threatens the validity of the Scriptures. Too many times today, many try to question the legitmacy of Genesis as a way or method to discredit the Bible. And if Genesis is wrong, this brings in question what other parts of the Bible are wrong? Yes, I'm a literalist. I believe the Scriptures are correct and without error.
It has been an enjoyable exchange. :)
Now if Moses wanted us to believe that the days in Genesis were longer than a day he would have used the word thousands(generations) like he did in passage 6 and not "day".
Actors or Looking?? ;^)
You are BLESSED for not knowing!
A coin rubbing?
I know, but SOME Evo's will JUMP on the EXACT wording of something - just like me! ;^)
I read today's paper in English; but I STILL don't know what's going on in this country!!!
Right........
Our 4 thumbed 'cousins' can open them easier!
HMmmm... Why haven't WE 'evolved' a foot thumb? It'd be a LOT easier to get yer socks up offa the floor!
Maybe our shoe wearing habit has eliminated the 'pressure' to HAVE a thumb there!
I've always been curious as to why evolution would have caused man to LOSE his hair, which would seem to be a distinct disadvantage as then man would have to waste time and resources to provide for himself coverings to protect against the elements. You'd think that the ones that didn't have to expend the extra energy to do that would have more time to find food and thereby increase chances of survival. Not to mention, not dying from exposure.
It was a really, really bad movie.
I don't want to give myself away here. ;)
Rejecting Kent Hovind is a step. Eleven more to go.
I have enjoyed the exchange. I do enjoy discussions with other freepers.
Freep out!
If we had all that hair, what would be the fun in getting nekkid?
Naked vs. Nekkid as defined by the late great Lewis Grizzard.
Naked: You have no clothes on.
Nekkid: You have no clothes on and are foolin' around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.