How do you explain your being dishonest. (There is no question mark.)
1 Like
And yet that is what happened in an incremental process. Evolution works with what it has to work with, not with wishes and dreams. Thus even today the big old bull you see in the field front legs are supported by flesh, not bones, as are your arms. The only connection of your arm that is bone connected by ligaments to bone is where your clavicles (collarbones) are touching your sternum and rib cage at the base of your neck. Muscles do all the heavy lifting.
3 Likes
Wait … what?! You mean the bones in the front legs of cows (or just bulls?) are actually not attached to the rest of the skeleton?! … or that the only attachment holding them together is a (fleshly) ligament? I just want to understand what you wrote there.
The shoulder joint connects to the scapula which free floats, and the outer end of your collarbone which only connects to your breastbone, which itself sorta flexibly connects to the ribs which encircle the chest to the spine.
3 Likes
I hadn’t realized we were all built in such a ‘disjointed’ way, so to speak! Thanks for the brief anatomy lesson.
Also explains why a brisket is so big and tough, as it supports a lot of the weight of a steer (same as our pectoral muscles)
1 Like
I mean…… that’s how natural selection works.
Evolution is not about whatever works, It is about ecological natural selection. Whatever works is not about science. Ecology is science although it seems that some have not yet awak3ned to that fact.
You are correct in that survival of the fittest doe not work, but where are the scientists looking for what does work. Thank God that National Geographic Society determined that ecology does drive evolution.
Was the time available too short to provide enough mutations? You are still arguing from incredulity (you cannot hear yourself).
Ecology does not drive mutations, but environment does determine what works or not.
Don’t go there again
Richard
Mutations do not drive evolution. Since ecology determines what works, then ir determines what mutations survive and what do not. God determines how ecology. works.
There would be no evolution without them. Semantics. (And I did not say mutations drive evolution.)
Whatever works still is true in a fixed environment, without changing ecology. Changing ecology is implicit in your argument, is it not?
That’s just nonsense – besides the fact that you’re conflating two distinct stories, something with a lack of life cannot be in God’s image since God is life.
Further, “formed … from the dust of the ground” is an ancient near eastern trope indicating mortality, as in “dust you are and to dust you will return”.
Last, Genesis 1 says there are already male and female, but the second story starts out with just a male.
That’s what the phrase boils down to in the ancient near eastern setting.
4 Likes
These are not contradictory. Ecology is just the system within which “whatever works” takes place.
1 Like
exactly Ron…and you have just highlighted my point and its a fantastic copout…those who do not accept the bible statements by saying things like “Jesus was wrong in talking about Noahs flood or creation or the genealogies” or “The Apostle Paul doesnt know what he is talking about when he talks about that things” these people are identifying as disagreeing with and denying Inspired scripture. So do the math…seeing as science is supposed to be so good at doing the math!
and while you are doing the math consider what Christ said about Moses…clearly identifying Moses writings as historical fact…(where is your allegory below?)
- John5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
and then there is this…a clear reference to a literal creation in Gensis 1 and 2.
-
14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
conflating? Really…how do you suppose i am conflating a text i quoted straight out of the Biblical creation account?
-
Gen 1: 26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,
-
Gen 1: 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.e
-
Gen 2: 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORDb God made them.
-
5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
How you can claim Genesis 1 and 2 are different accounts is not only absurd, the text directly contradicts that claim (as highlighted above)
Then the clincher…
- Ge2: 7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d
prior to Genesis 2:7…there was clearly no living mankind…the form in front of God on the ground was essentially dead (from dust you came and to dust you shall return Gen 3:19)
How does one explain that God spoke animals into existence? (they were not formed out of the dust of the earth like Adam)
-
Gen1: 20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
-
22Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
-
23And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
The above texts make it a theological impossibility that we came from amphibians…or any animal and the idea that legs grew in a manner not coming from the spinal column is foolish thinking. The above biblical texts align with my view that there is nothing structurally sound in any form of engineering that works this way. Appendages meant to perform load bearing work on land that are attached purely to flesh are useless and always have been nothing but a liability. I would suggest that any appendages connected in this way would get torn off and we would all slither like snakes!
Except that the bible specifically says God formed Adam…it also says God brought each of the animals to Adam to see what he would name them!
I dont read anything regarding natural selection in those biblical passages…and to be honest, how you can apparently read “natural selection” into it is a mystery except to claim far eastern pagan…secular sources???
The Bible makes it very clear that creation was a miracle…not a result of random processes of natural selection.
The only place such statements are found here is in your imagination.
You quoted texts from two very different accounts.
The order of events is different, the literary type is different. They are two different stories.
So you think this is false?:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
And God blessed them."
Tell that to all the mammals whose front limbs – specifically the scapula from which all those limbs depend – aren’t attached to anything except by soft tissue.
The trouble is that you are imposing a modern western worldview onto ancient literature. That keeps you from reading with understanding.
Except it doesn’t. The scriptures say nothing about the processes God used.
Please stop insulting the Holy Spirit by demanding that He had to inspire people to write in a way that satisfies you. That demand also insults the writers He chose and the audiences He intended to reach because it dismisses their wordviews as unimportant.
1 Like