Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Tenacious 1
>If you don't get Genesis correct, you won't get the rest of the Bible correct.<

I'm not sure where you stand on the issue. The Pope's sentiments reflect my long held beliefs. Intelligent design includes evolution.

Mankind has not evolved from an ape or any other animal. Genesis records that only man was created in God's image. None of the animal kingdom is described that way.

If you believe evolution you believe man has changed in some way from something in the past like an ape or amoeba to where we are today.

That is not supported by the Bible.

Adaptation can be observed in nature, but not evolution. By adaptation I mean a species adapting to it's environment. By evolution I mean a species changing from one form to another.

A big difference between the two.

I believe in the literal interpretation of the six day creation account as recorded in the Bible.

39 posted on 10/27/2014 2:20:12 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: ealgeone

>>By adaptation I mean a species adapting to it’s environment. By evolution I mean a species changing from one form to another.<<

Not commenting on your conclusion. But I am noting you are using unscientific terms to describe scientific phenomena. It is like saying “by star I mean big ball of light.”

When in a domain, you should use the proper vernacular.


43 posted on 10/27/2014 2:24:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Zimmerman, Brown, Fast & Furious, IRS harassment, Philly ignorance: holdering in 1st degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: ealgeone
Umm...you can have evolution without inferring cross-species evolution. Man has clearly evolved from what man was thousands of years ago.

But a man did not evolve from an ape and yet both were CREATED.

46 posted on 10/27/2014 2:28:46 PM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: ealgeone

The Bible was never meant to be taken literally.


78 posted on 10/27/2014 2:56:30 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("PRO FIDE, PRO UTILITATE HOMINUM")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: ealgeone; Tenacious 1
ealgeone: "Adaptation can be observed in nature, but not evolution.
By adaptation I mean a species adapting to it's environment.
By evolution I mean a species changing from one form to another.
A big difference between the two."

No, the difference between "adaption" and "evolution" is nothing but word definition games -- in fact, they are exactly the same thing, short term versus longer term.

Evidences for short-term "adaptions" can be found everywhere in nature and DNA analyses.
DNA changes can be measured for more-recent versus more-distant-past times.
So the point at which "adaption" slides into "evolution" is strictly a matter of word definitions.

157 posted on 10/27/2014 9:53:14 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: ealgeone
I believe in the literal interpretation of the six day creation account as recorded in the Bible.<\i>

I believe it is symbolic and provided a simple explanation for a relatvy primitive people. I doubt gods first humans could comprehend grAvity, mass, physics, etc. like much of the bible, stories convey gods message in a way that can be told and retold for generations.

162 posted on 10/28/2014 3:50:39 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (You are lukewarm, and I spew you out of my mouth. Even God considers spineless behavior distasteful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson