God's Place In Evolution

The point of my post was not to show that the Bible is a medical/scientific textbook. By the way, if Adam had not rejected Gid's sovereignty over him to begin with, we wouldn't be sitting here with the burden of trying to eradicate disease. We have not cured all disease, BTW, so we shouldn't be so proud of ourselves. The root of sickness and death is sin, the sin that occurred in Eden. The sin that alienated mankind from his Source and Creator.

Hey Goldrush, a hearty welcome to EvC. Good job on your OP. I see you had a one rating but I fixed that for you with a well deserved fiver. God is the only logical explanation for the huge knowledge and brain capability between brute animals and humans. Humans are truly designed after the designer's image. We have been created to communicate with our maker intelligently and to rely on him for everything.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Again, that is simply misrepresenting what is actually written. There is nothing in the Bible Adam & Eve fabele that says disease is the result of sin or that man is alienated from God.If you like please start a thread on that and yet again we can examine what is actually written.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Are you going to be addressing some of the previous counterarguments raised here, or are you just going to keep throwing out different and unrelated pointspoints, which, by the way, have been refuted a thousand times?JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

That seems to be a rather exotic way of saying that the biblical account is hopelessly wrong.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Then what was your point as it relates to the topic? Based on what evidence? How does that evidence relate to the topic at hand?Should we also be talking about the mistake that Achilles' mother made when she forgot to dip is heel in the River Styx?

Could you please spell out this logic for us? Simply asserting that something is logical does not make it logical.

It's a laughing-stock.However, this seems to have little to do with the subjects raised in the OP, which you seem averse to pursuing.

Well of course it's predictable. That's because it's true.If you went around claiming that two plus two was five, it's highly predictable that you'd hear the word "four" quite a lot.

Heck it has the same amount of evidence, that is none.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

But the exact same thing can be said of any primate, ape, monkey. In fact, the same can be said of most, if not all, mammals.So you ask where did the first human get the knowledge?But I'll ask where did the first monkey get it, or dolphin, or bat get that very same knowledge?Why stop at humans when many, many more species down the line show this same behavior?However, if you understood common ancestry then you would see how these traits emerged and came to be present in modern mammals, which obviously includes humans.- Oni

[qs=Jon][qs] Good catch Jon. But the idea behind that original post was to show how people could use rationality alone to come to the creator conclusion. This was not to say that all or most people arrive at it the conclusion purely this way, as I don't believe this happens very often, (as I revealed in this later topic). As you have said, a poster's entire view if things is not contained in one comment alone.

This later post was kinda my original idea behind the original post, kinda as an introduction. In hindsight though, I admit my original post wasn't a really great idea. And yeah I do feel adverse to persuing it.

I know this is how you see it, but I must respectfully disagree. I also apologize for responding to you the way I did. I really could have been much more mature and tactful about it. I'm sorry.

OK, here's one for you.The global flood, which biblical scholars place ca. 4,350 years ago, has been shown by science to not have happened.It is so easy to disprove the Genesis flood story that even my own archaeological research has done so.Does this give you any doubts, or do you just ignore all of this evidence?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.