Theory of Evolution

[pia]

...ya, guess i'm not s'posed to go there nevermind lol

hahaha, yeah I know what you mean

 

[kiwimac]

How do you know that?

The genetic record clearly shows it, as does the fossil record.

 

[kiwimac]

Isn't it obvious? He is in effect saying that the likeness of God is that of a primate. When we see God sitting on his throne, he will look dark and hairy with big fat lips.............yep............

God does not look like a human. God is a spirit not a physical person.

 

[Dcopymope]

God does not look like a human. God is a spirit not a physical person.

First of all, I never said God has a physical body, only that we were made in his likeness. But of course I am sure you know better than Ezekiel when he described the appearance of God in his vision. You know better than Moses who quotes God stating that we are created after his likeness. You know better than all of Gods prophets. You can tell us all what spirit is and how it relates to the flesh, and so forth.

(Ezekiel 1:26) "¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it............."

(Ezekiel 1:28) "As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake."

So we know God does not have a fleshly body, yet he still somehow has a likeness similar to humanity. It shows that when God says something, he means it. When he said we are made after his likeness, he meant it. He isn't just some bright, formless blob, he has a tangible form much like his creation has a tangible form, this we know from the word of God. If you want to pretend to know more about heaven and what God looks like than what is written, than knock yourself out.

 

[kiwimac]

First of all, I never said God has a physical body, only that we were made in his likeness. But of course I am sure you know better than Ezekiel when he described the appearance of God in his vision. You know better than Moses who quotes God stating that we are created after his likeness. You know better than all of Gods prophets. You can tell us all what spirit is and how it relates to the flesh, and so forth.



So we know God does not have a fleshly body, yet he still somehow has a likeness similar to humanity. It shows that when God says something, he means it. When he said we are made after his likeness, he meant it. He isn't just some bright, formless blob, he has a tangible form much like his creation has a tangible form, this we know from the word of God. If you want to pretend to know more about heaven and what God looks like than what is written, than knock yourself out.

Spirit's do not have physical form/ If you are going to argue that God has a body then you must also accept the scriptures that talk of God's "Wings." The whole picture of the Bible is that God is formless, his image and likeness is not a physical thing but a spiritual one.

 

[bbyrd009]

You always kill me LOL, If they do not have one then ether they are an amputee, of not human imo! so yes!

ah, you'll be wanting to go read that again i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

They call it the 'Theory of Evolution'.....some would call it a 'hypothesis' lol

ha, so funny how our opinions get informed by the first ones to get to us, i guess; i mean do we even listen to ourselves?
"No way that God could possibly have made Adam right from elements."
"God formed Adam from the dust of the earth."

 

[bbyrd009]

Wasn't he the one who sold his birthright for a bowl of 'soup' ?

something like that, ya :)

Esau is actually a profound lesson in belief and human nature, that builds on the perspective of "the bed is too short, the blanket too narrow;" but you have to go find it now, as it has been obscured in English. Esau asked for "red stuff" bc he was "dying," right, even tho he obv was not dying, walked in there under his own power, etc.

Esau was a type for Adam, also, which pastor has never revealed, that i am aware of. It's really an elegant parable, all of the original terms bring out the symbolism, "red stuff" is really over the top imo, once "eating" is understood in the right context, etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

God does not look like a human. God is a spirit not a physical person.

It shows that when God says something, he means it.

 

[Dcopymope]

as long as the mystery remains, great; i don't know that dust of the earth means cells.
But when that is summarily excluded, then a conclusion has been reached, right
evolution as you have defined it, maybe, but abiogenesis is really what that is called, and evolution might even be more properly said to apply only to organisms that are already alive, and not even address Creation at all.

This distinction is kind of emerging as we speak, and seems like a good way to differentiate the two concepts is why i mention it; they seem to be splitting, over the last 20 years or so maybe

Of course this debate rages no less than our faith v works ones, and i personally doubt abiogenesis, but if it were proven tomorrow i still wouldn't doubt God did it.

No, its taught in school as "chemical evolution" today in a way that leaves the student to believe that it actually could have occurred, just like the big bang is taught in school as "cosmic evolution". Very little has changed even today.

 

[Dcopymope]

Spirit's do not have physical form/ If you are going to argue that God has a body then you must also accept the scriptures that talk of God's "Wings." The whole picture of the Bible is that God is formless, his image and likeness is not a physical thing but a spiritual one.

The scriptures that speak of Gods wings are simply metaphors for being under his protection. Ezekiel's vision is no metaphor, it is a eye witness account of Gods throne, what he looks like and the four living creatures thereof. There is no comparison between the two whatsoever. He saw it and gives a description of what he saw as best as humanly possible. If it was meant to be symbolic, then the scriptures themselves would have explained it as such as is typically done. It does the exact opposite and outright tells you that "this was the appearance of the likeness of the Lord".

(Ezekiel 1:26-28) "¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. {27} And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. {28} As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake."

Again, no mention of wings for Gods appearance, or of any part of this vision being "symbolic". That should tell you that the other scriptures are indeed symbolic of his protection and nothing more than that.

 

[amadeus]

They call it the 'Theory of Evolution'.....some would call it a 'hypothesis' lol

Yes, it is probably a better word for what they have.

 

[bbyrd009]

No, its taught in school as "chemical evolution" today in a way that leaves the student to believe that it actually could have occurred, just like the big bang is taught in school as "cosmic evolution". Very little has changed even today.

well, and as noted, abiogenesis might fit "God formed Adam from the dust of the earth" perfectly! To me it is a way to keep people divided, mostly, and i have come to suspect any alleged conversations about the past or the future myself. especially since our kids are getting sicker today.

 

[bbyrd009]

If it was meant to be symbolic, then the scriptures themselves would have explained it as such as is typically done. It does the exact opposite and outright tells you that "this was the appearance of the likeness of the Lord".

well, but listen to yourself now, "Ezekiel saw God." When he plainly stated he saw a human anyway. And that was "the appearance of the likeness of the Lord's Glory" right?

Plus the "four" cherubim...well, we can go into that later, but these "four" really set the stage, and inform us what the vision is about. God is not represented by "four." Ezekiel is not saying that he saw God there, and a vision about something else entirely is being read with expectations imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Ezekiel's vision is no metaphor, it is a eye witness account of Gods throne

plainly stated visions cannot be metaphorical, and must be reflected upon as eye-witness accounts now. ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, it is probably a better word for what they have.

pretty sure they are synonyms?

 

[amadeus]

pretty sure they are synonyms?

This is what I remember from when I was in school according to my chemistry instructor:

At the first a good scientist gathers the information available to establish a hypothesis which he wishes to prove or disprove. This is done without any testing or experimenting.

Then the scientist proceeds to set up tests or experiments which he believes will support his hypothesis. If he gets any negative results [seeming to disprove his hypothesis], he may then find it necessary to revise his hypothesis to fit what the tests show.

Eventually when enough tests have been run successfully in support of a hypothesis, it may then be renamed "theory" as it usually does what the hypothesis said it would. When something is called a theory it should mean that it is supported by more than just a logical conclusion. A fact, of course, should be a considerable step higher than a theory. Three levels:

1) hypothesis
2) theory
3) fact

Some hypotheses never become theories. Some theories never become fact.

Of course, like so many definitions, people have misused the words so much that the definitions of a hypothesis and a theory themselves have been changed. I have not been much into science personally for a great many years, so I cannot say that the definitions used by scientists have not been changed. They certainly are used differently and even, as you say, are commonly treated as "synonyms" by non-scientists.

For me, I still try to stand by the distinction I learned in school for communication's sake if for no other reason, but as I see with this conversation communication may still be at times confused.

A problem that I have often seen is that people too quickly speak of facts when really there is little basis even to say something is a theory [according to my understanding of what a theory is] . With no real tests made they jump from hypothesis [my meaning] beyond theory [my meaning] to fact.

 

[pia]

Esau was a type for Adam, also

I have never heard all that much about this......

 

[pia]

Some hypotheses never become theories. Some theories never become fact.

I my opinion, that is where quite a bit of what we are spoon fed at schools belong......One other thing I just thought of, is that facts are just steps toward truth..

 

[bbyrd009]

I have never heard all that much about this......

well to Christianity Esau is the "bad guy" right

but anyway, to connect the two you would reflect on "Edom" and Adam, i guess. Leave Seir for later