Replies

>>Because if it's possible that God doesn't have a physical resemblance to man, you can't use it as a supporting axiom in opposing evolution.

>Not true because there are more ways in which man was created in God's image than just one, the physical one.

Sigh. No wonder sane people avoid these threads! You don't read what I write, or you're purposely ignoring it.

Again:

Axiom P: "God has a physical resemblance to man."

It is possible Axiom P is not true.

Therefore, Axiom P cannot be used as an argument against evolution.

How much more plain do I have to make this?

Man has a physical resemblence to God. God came first. Man came second. God created man in His image in more ways that just physical. And since in Scripture, God clearly makes reference to some parts of His body, there is no reason to think that it is not real and true. He walked by Moses in Exodus chapter 33. In Revelation He sits on His throne. You can't do that without a body.

You're starting from some faulty premises; one is that the physical is the only way in which man resembles God, that it's God who resembles man and not vice versa, and that that God does not have a form that we were patterened after.

Ignoring the other ways in which man resembles God leads to faulty conclusions because the premise is incorrect. When God said He made man in His image, HE didn't specify in which area, so to focus on something that doesn't have any support and try to build an argument on it, doesn't work.

It is possible Axiom P is not true.

Sigh...

It is possible VG is a Muslim bomber-wannabe; therefore what she says can't be used against her in a court of law.

(Makes about as much sense...)