If Genesis is to be read as a literal representation of the chronological and biological order of how God created everything; why is the passage that refers to God creating Adam from the dust appear after the seventh day? You're correct, the first mention of God creating man, male and female is on the sixth day. But that is not when Adam appears. Or is it? Why does it matter? It doesn't! There are more important reasons to read and understand Genesis than understanding how it fits into scientific theory regarding origin and evolution.
And yet you lob this weird counter-example: "No matter how many times a homosexual accepts semen into his large intestine, or how many generations of homosexuals do this, evolution won't eventually provide for males developing ovaries. Or will it? Why is changing sexes any different than changing species?" Now think, why would evolution not provide for males developing ovaries? Think for a minute. Because a basic understanding of evolution and how it works is sufficient to see the massive flaws in your counter-example.
talking about men developing ovaries simply because they ingest sperm, shows he doesn't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about Evolution and is just trolling with homophobia.
Genesis 2 is a completely different telling of creation. That's pretty blatantly obvious. For example "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up" - Genesis 2:5 "Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." - Genesis 1:11-12 If these aren't retellings, they are pretty contradictory.
it has to be demonstrated, not just stated. So far its kinda like I said Im an expert on football, so then they put me on the post game show and i start talking about goals and the rink. Think they'd figure out i didnt know much?
Okay....it's about time you finally stopped accusing others of attacking your God, and made it clear you also dispute the Biblical story of creation.
There is a such thing as mutation within the SRY gene. Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. I don't wrongly assume that repeated sexual activity would result in that mutation of the SRY gene, which, given enough time, would result in the formation of female organs within males. I was being facetious.
so can we stop with talk of the bible and of facetious nonsense, and get to the point of your thread? what is the point?
Then there must be another reason for why it was written. The Bible is essentially either prophetic or revelational. What truths are being prophecied or revealed?
And fourth option, that these two different creation stories are based on existing tales from other cultures, borrowed so that the new boss god could be repositioned and his duties reassigned.
Where've you been? I dispute the common ancestor to the chimp and human. There's no evidence, only speculation based on the presumption that ALL living things share a single common ancestor. I dispute that plants and animals share a common ancestor. There's no evidence of it. There's no evidence of the speciation event that took place in which a plant became an animal or an animal became a plant. The UC Berkeley website states unequivocally that oak trees and humans are cousins. Really? Where's the evidence?
strawman. no one of any significance argues that animals came from plants. if all you got is strawman arguments and facetious homophobia, you're done here.
Evolution says all of life is related. Are you saying Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota don't share a common ancestor? The three domains This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. We can zoom in on particular branches of the tree to explore the phylogeny of particular lineages, such as Animalia (outlined in red). And then we can zoom in even further to examine some of the major lineages within Vertebrata. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_04
so you admit I was right? no one says "animals came from plants". you're just creating an ignorant strawman cause you can't debate Evolution honestly. no Creationists can.
Life either began in the three domains we observe today or it began as one and became three. What do you believe?
haven't looked into it. but the fact is, the BEST science says all plants and animals evolved from much smaller, less complex species.
Been right here, asking you things, telling you things that you ignore. You say you understand the basics of evolution, but you keep saying things that show you do not. Your "no evidence / presumption / speculation" about chimp and human is simply not true, for example. Nobody says that an animal became a plant of vice versa. Its not really enough to say you "dispute", and then kine of make things up to say dont believe. if you have something specific that you think shows ToE is not true, please say it Some data to back it up would be nice.
Trying to figure out what life was like that long ago is very difficult. The part of life history that is accessible to detailed study some few hundred million years of fossil record all does show that evolution has been going along ever since those early days. Whether its one in three or three in one doesnt make any difference to the fact that evolution has been going on ever since.
How far back do you care to go in human evolution before you require evidence of a common ancestor to the oak tree? Scroll to the bottom of the page to see the Timeline graphic. There is insufficient evidence to date many fossils within our own family on this little twig of the tree of life. Why believe there are relationships beyond what there's evidence to support? The author starts his introduction to hominid species stating: "Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html That's a far cry from the absolute certainty expressed by people here, but don't worry, this guy won't disappoint you. I say that statement alone, and the timeline are enough for me to doubt that there's any common ancestor between humans and oak trees, that all of life started as one life.
