Foxfyre
I didn't mean to misspell your name it was an oversight on my part, sorry.
Quote: Modern science does say that woman came before man but they do not know when this occurred. It may have been long before we even resembled human beings. The earliest humans ever found were heterosexual. Yes, the mitochondria suggests that women are older but there is only speculation as when the x chromosome was "formed". It could have been when we were still a puddle of muck on a rock. Considering we share ninety percent of our genes with rodents and monkeys etc. and they are heterosexual too... lets says it was a long time before we were "human" and leave it at that.
.
REXRED-science says no such thing. perhaps you are confused about the inherited traits that are passed along and recorded in mDNA, which is acquired from the mothers side. the 'First Eve" was merely a metaphorical concept used to explain evolution and the role that mDNA plays in allowing us to unravel human evolutionary development.
pErhaps your Bible does not translate"Creation' into an actual 7 day week, but the strict Creationist school believes that it does. Your interpretation of how humans were 'formed" is an example of how both the Creationists and Intelligent Designers are being backed into corners of dogma. Your statement dispenses with discussion of facts and now delves into presuming what is on the mind of a deity. You make huge leaps of logic, and I feel, you have no place to land
I've also heard the King James bible was modified to suit what King James wanted in it. It may be similar to the original one, but he did change some words to suit himself. How do you know that word was taken directly from the Hebrew translation? It could have been derived from other versions of the bible in English. And by saying you're not getting too fussy over the word choice, you are implying that you don't care much for its accuracy. Don't look on Darwin as an appeal to authority. He may have suggested evolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything he said was accurate. In fact, he himself was not a scientist. He was a naturalist on the HMS Beagle. All the things we know about evolution now are the result of scientific experiments and observations, done by actual researchers, who do know their terms. "Form" is more associated with the individual specie and its shape--not its change. You may relate to the formation of man and woman and their spirit being made by god in the bible, but this has no place in science or evolution. There's no way to test or observe spirits. As for the Old Testament, I don't know about that. That gives me the impression that God is merciless and murderous. I'm not the only person who thinks about this, but killing innocent babies is merciless, and using slaughter as punishment is defeating the purpose.
way i see it is
evolution seems more plausible
creationism in the literal sense doesnt
id go for the creator created a blueprint of everything and then evolution followed the divine plan....
maybe god created man and woman spiritually or in essence and when evolution caught up with the idea/spirit then those spirits occupied the evolved bodies...
something like this anyway
i like to see god in the hindu sense in this case too
as a creator/preserver/destroyer/ all in one
NickFun wrote:So God is just a regular guy like the rest of us? How does he stay so fit and active in his later years? I'm 44 and already starting to slow down a bit. God must be at least 20 billion years old and not a gray hair on him!
first of all...God doesnt age...and if he did he would be able to stop it. and second...why 20 billion years
he's been around forever...i no thats hard to grasp. because our minds think in time mode...not eternity mode.
but its true
if u want to debate about this u might want to know about the stuff ur debating about...just a sugestion
-
Jake Robinson
Col Man wrote:way i see it is
evolution seems more plausible
creationism in the literal sense doesnt
what doesnt creation seem plausible?
i wouldnt take nickfun seriously jrob hes the forum comedian/funnyman...
and welcome to a2k jrob
i hope you have fun here
creation in the biblical sense
like the example of god making a woman out of a mans rib...
Lucifer wrote:I've also heard the King James bible was modified to suit what King James wanted in it. It may be similar to the original one, but he did change some words to suit himself.
its funny you should mentions this today because in my history class today (9th grade, universal history) we were debating on this very subject...your very correct...which is exactly why not to use that bible...im not saying it doesnt have truth in it and divine revelation...but the bible say not to mend in ne way the truths in the bible...therefore i dont use it
its as simple as that
Col Man wrote:creation in the biblical sense
like the example of god making a woman out of a mans rib...
i understood what you ment
PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN CANCELED?!
did u watch the debate to night?
no i missed it.. what was it like?
im not into politics...
srry to get off topic but thers not much going on here and i cant pm nebody
yeah 