Jump to content


Photo

Microevolution Observed In Laboratory


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#121 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2009 - 12:27 PM

No, you didn't respond to it. My post essentially provided the scriptural evidence that God said He would create man in His image. He then formed man's image from the dirt of the ground. You attempted to equivocate that breathing the breath of life into man's form (in God's image) was somehow God's image. And yet you don't see the fallacy in your argument.


I'm sorry I actually decided to look up the Hebrew word used and found that it can also be, and often is, translated to spirit rather than breath. But even if we were to forget all that you still haven't responded to the other parts of my post that included scripture saying that God is spirit and the spirit is incorporeal. So how can we be made in the physical image of something that isn't physical?

You, in fact, have yet to provide a logical argument that I should respond to. You then immaturely claimed some sort of victory.


It seems to me you are avoiding the content of my posts through ad hominems and one liner negatives, both of which are against the forum rules.

#122 Supersport

Supersport

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 28 September 2009 - 07:50 PM

well first of all -- in the name of science -- you would need to somehow prove that this was a random ability acquired by some lucky bacterium.  Second of all, you need to realize that the rules of the game are changing for bacteria....that no longer is the reductionist view (neo-darwinist/selectionist view) the one that represents reality in regards to how the bacterial world operates.  Read the complete ripping of the reductionist, "science-stopping" philosophy of the past century, written by none other than Carl Woese:

http://guava.physics.....MMBR 2009.pdf


"Indeed, we have undergone a revolution in biology that is fully comparable to
the Copernican revolution in astronomy and the very recent
and ongoing revolution in observational cosmology."

And besides, if RMNS actually worked on the level of the bacterium, then there should be no problem showing it happening in the rest of the animal kingdom.  Do you have even one example you can show me whereby a scientifically-verified "random" mutation was proliferated by natural selection to confer a positive populational change?

View Post


I guess not...

#123 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 September 2009 - 05:57 AM

I'm sorry I actually decided to look up the Hebrew word used and found that it can also be, and often is, translated to spirit rather than breath. But even if we were to forget all that you still haven't responded to the other parts of my post that included scripture saying that God is spirit and the spirit is incorporeal. So how can we be made in the physical image of something that isn't physical?
It seems to me you are avoiding the content of my posts through ad hominems and one liner negatives, both of which are against the forum rules.

View Post


I see you are still missing the point(or purposefully avoiding it). I'm not saying God didn't breath the "breath of life" into man (so quit equivocating to avoid the truth). But, He (God) clearly did so after He created man in His Image! "the LORD God formed <or constructed> the man from the dust of the ground and <or then> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". Gen 2:7

It is you sir, who are avoiding, and equivocating (Which is a violation of the forum rules).Then you are attempting to paint me as using "ad hominem" attacks, simply because you don't like my calling you on your misunderstandings (or determined and intended misdirections). It is not a disallowed "ad hominem" attack if "the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief." And you clearly have a problem with your understanding of the source (Genesis one and two). But I did provide it above (once again) so you can see your equivocation.

I have not done One liner negatives SIR, I have called you on your attempts to twist the scriptures to fit your world view.

#124 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 October 2009 - 12:35 PM

I see you are still missing the point(or purposefully avoiding it). I'm not saying God didn't breath the "breath of life" into man (so quit equivocating to avoid the truth).


I'm not saying that you say that God didn't breathe the breath of life into man. In fact I think you were the one to quote that from the Bible.

But, He (God) clearly did so after He created man in His Image!  "the LORD God formed <or constructed> the man from the dust of the ground and <or then> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". Gen 2:7


What does it mean when God said that He created man in His image?

My question/argument is that because of standard Christian doctrine that God is incorporeal and from John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 which supports that notion, how can we have been formed in the physical image of God? So I say that we are not in the physical image of God, but are formed in the spiritual image of God which is expressed when we do acts of love and kindness. Especially when there is no benefit for us; altruism. But because we are human (or fallen) we don't express perfect love all the time like God does.

It is you sir, who are avoiding, and equivocating (Which is a violation of the forum rules).


How am I equivocating? Is it because the original Torah was written in Hebrew, and you can translate it several different ways. So when you look at the word used in Hebrew for spirit it is often translated as breath or wind instead. So when the Bible says 'breath of life', it may be translated as 'spirit of life'. While I find this fact interesting and supportive of my interpretation, it is not my main focal point of my interpretation because I don't know Hebrew or their culture in detail.

Then you are attempting to paint me as using "ad hominem" attacks, simply because you don't like my calling you on your misunderstandings (or determined and intended misdirections)...


You have yet to respond to John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 or the Hebrew word for spirit/breath that I brought up. When I ask for your response you claim that I don't have a valid response than I "immaturely claimed some sort of victory." I'm not claiming any victory, just asking questions about the validity of the interpretation of 'we are created in the physical image of God'. If you don't have a refutation to my points that's fine, maybe someone else does. And if not, I still respect your right to believe that we are created in the physical image of God, that is just not my belief.

I have not done One liner negatives SIR


"In one word? No!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users