Favourite Genesis

@indonesia-phil said
it's hard to see how any group of us could become so distinct from another group that we become classifiable as a different species. We adapt as a species, and adaptations are passed on from one generation to another

Do you agree that Mankind in a million years will probably be different
enough from Man now to make inter-breeding impossible?

At that time Man will be a new species, and evolutionists will have to make
a fairly arbitrary decision as to when that happened, although it is actually
constantly happening; past, present and future.
!!! 😆

@divegeester said
Yes I agree with that.

I’ve no idea why he would change his mind, I’m simply pointing out what is in the bible.

That’s your opinion I suppose.

It is not just that an omniscient being changes His mind, but that His mind is changed by human beings who lack such omniscience.

@divegeester said
The biblical vision of omnipotence is that God never changes.

I am probably just playing devil's advocate (a risky strategy in this context) but I would guess there must be references in the bible to god being beyond man's comprehension such that it shouldn't be assumed that we know how God's image should be accurately represented or what is a proper representation.

Takes you into art and what is a true representation. One of my favourite stories describes a meeting between Picasso and the husband of a woman he was painting.

'That looks nothing like my wife.'
'What does your wife look like then?'
The husband produces a photo from his wallet.
'She's very small and black and white then?'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't recognize anything as being omnipotent.

I knew that would probably happen if I held you to a draw, but it had to be done.

@petewxyz said
I knew that would probably happen if I held you to a draw, but it had to be done.

There can be great nobility in a draw sir.

😀

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It is not just that an omniscient being changes His mind, but that His mind is changed by human beings who lack such omniscience.

Yes that’s the nature of the God described in the Bible as reflected by his interest in humankind and an interaction with them. I don’t find anything incongruent in this model.

@wolfgang59 said
Do you agree that Mankind in a million years will probably be different
enough from Man now to make inter-breeding impossible?

At that time Man will be a new species, and evolutionists will have to make
a fairly arbitrary decision as to when that happened, although it is actually
constantly happening; past, present and future.
!!! 😆

We don't have that long.

Sorry to break it to you.

We're well past our 'sell-by' date.

Warning: This is part of what, arguably, constitutes some of my 'wackiest' opinions.

@divegeester said
Yes that’s the nature of the God described in the Bible as reflected by his interest in humankind and an interaction with them. I don’t find anything incongruent in this model.

It's 'incongruent' with an 'unchanging' God, though.

@petewxyz said
I am probably just playing devil's advocate (a risky strategy in this context) but I would guess there must be references in the bible to god being beyond man's comprehension such that it shouldn't be assumed that we know how God's image should be accurately represented or what is a proper representation.

“Devils advocate“ for what exactly...

There are references in the bible which talk of God’s revealed image (Jesus Christ) and the mystery of his non revealed aspects and plans.

I don’t see any incongruence in this either.

What I did see and in congruence in is Suzianne’s particular dogmatic splicing of the mechanics of continuous evolution with creation in God’s image. It is interesting to me that neither you nor GoaD don’t seem to.

@suzianne said
It's 'incongruent' with an 'unchanging' God, though.

How so?

“I am the Lord and I change not”

Perhaps you have a different version of God’s word where it says “I am the Lord and I change a lot”

@divegeester said
“We're still the same species we've always been.“

But evolution shows that we haven’t been the “same species we’ve always been”.

But in all practicality, we are.

And no doubt, where it matters to God, we are.

@suzianne said
We don't have that long.

Sorry to break it to you.

We're well past our 'sell-by' date.

Warning: This is part of what, arguably, constitutes some of my 'wackiest' opinions.

At which point in the global evolution of our species did we become the “image of God”?

Did this occur simultaneously across all evolutionary channels?

@suzianne said
But in all practicality, we are.

No, evolution shows that in all practically we are NOT the same species we have always been.

That’s what “evolution” means, it means to evolve, to change from one state to another.

You do understand how evolution works right?

@divegeester said
At which point in the global evolution of our species did we become the “image of God”?

Did this occur simultaneously across all evolutionary channels?

When we were "created".

Damn, how many times do I have to answer the same question?

You really should look into this character flaw of yours. It's not very attractive.

@suzianne said
When we were "created".

We were created “when we were created”

That’s your intellectual response to the questions about your claim that god used evolution to create man?