EvC Forum: When did Homo Sapiens become 'in the image of God' ?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: When did Homo Sapiens become 'in the image of God' ?

LucyTheApe

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 30 of 52 (513272)
06-27-2009 9:22 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
06-14-2009 3:32 AM

In the image of GOD

slevesque OP writes:

1- Biblically, is there a difference between animals and humans ?

2- If there are no differences, then why would God regard humans as anymore special than other animals ?

3- If there is a difference, what is it ?

4- If this difference is that humans are thelogically in God's image, then at what point along their evolutionnary progression did they become 'in God's image' ?

G'day Slevesque, I couldn't help myself from responding to your topic, sorry.

Man was made in the image of God from the beginning of Creation. Any Christian must agree with Jesus who says "⁶ But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. "(Mark 10:6 NJB)

He made man in the beginning. Man didn't evolve from any ape. Evolutionists are clawing onto a theory which is laughable. If they don't like a God then they have to find some other theory because evolution just doesn't cut it. I can't believe we are still having this debate.

You can lead an athiest to water but you can't make him think.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 3:32 AM		slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 41 by slevesque, posted 06-27-2009 6:04 PM	LucyTheApe has not replied
	Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2009 9:21 PM	LucyTheApe has not replied
	Message 50 by onifre, posted 06-30-2009 6:13 PM	LucyTheApe has not replied

LucyTheApe

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 31 of 52 (513276)
06-27-2009 9:38 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2009 7:59 AM

Graphs??

DrA writes:

I leave you with this image:

What a croc. Man evolved thousands of years before women.
Who writes this shit? Who believes it?

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
	Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 7:59 AM		Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 9:49 AM		LucyTheApe has replied

LucyTheApe

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 33 of 52 (513281)
06-27-2009 10:01 AM

Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
06-27-2009 9:49 AM

Re: Graphs??

bluescat writes:

You are misreading the graph. The modern man/women on the graph is for comparison to the previous hominids, simply showing the brain size of the modern Homo sapiens

Bluescat, the graph clearly shows that Man appeared before Woman, by thousands of years, regardless of cranium capacity. It's just simply ridiculous. Why can't scientists these days, do science?

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
	Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 9:49 AM		bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 10:42 AM	LucyTheApe has replied
	Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2009 10:43 AM	LucyTheApe has replied
	Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2009 9:18 PM	LucyTheApe has not replied

LucyTheApe

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 36 of 52 (513288)
06-27-2009 11:13 AM

Reply to: Message 35 by NosyNed
06-27-2009 10:43 AM

Re: Astonishing!

NosyNed writes:

If that is your understanding of that chart then you should retire from the science forums here.

It's a faith and belief forum.

You are not equipped with the knowledge necessary to carry on any discussions at all.

knowledge is not enough to carry on a discussion Nosy, you also need to be able to reason.

I am thunderstruck by your conclusion! The chart shows fossils that have been found. There are periods when the only fossils found have been male. That is all it means.

What, for thousands of years only male human fossils have been found and no female human fossils. Why draw a graph? Why not just say we don't have enough information?

You are hopelessly out of your depth.

Bit of advice; never underestimate your enemy.

Edited by LucyTheApe, : Hopelessly out of your depth.

Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
	Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2009 10:43 AM		NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 39 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2009 2:59 PM		LucyTheApe has not replied

LucyTheApe

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 37 of 52 (513293)
06-27-2009 11:43 AM

Reply to: Message 34 by bluescat48
06-27-2009 10:42 AM

Re: Graphs??

Bluescat writes:

You still don't get it. The line before modern males is Homo sapiens, what do you think modern men/women are? To be blunt Homo sapiens

Please Bluescat, in your own words, explain what this graph is means.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
	Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 10:42 AM		bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 06-27-2009 8:25 PM		LucyTheApe has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	PaulK, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,925 Year: 4,182/9,624 Month: 1,053/974 Week: 12/368 Day: 12/11 Hour: 1/2