Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[7djengo7]

We should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges.

To evidence? Or, instead, to what you, being a Darwin cheerleader, erroneously choose to call "evidence"? Which?

There is solid evidence that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor:

Sharing a common ancestor

Humans did not evolve from an ape - we are apes, and our closest living relatives include chimpanzees and gorillas.

australian.museum

IOW, you don't want to talk about, or present any evidence. You prefer, instead, to hand us Darwinistspeak, and to call such non-evidence, "evidence."

 

[Skeeter]

DNA similarity is evidence. The particulars of fossil structure and location are evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

DNA similarity is evidence.

Humans have similar DNA to a sea sponge. Try again.

The particulars of fossil structure and location are evidence.

They are evidence, but not for evolution.

 

[7djengo7]

DNA similarity is evidence.
The particulars of fossil structure and location are evidence.

IOW, Darwinist claims are "evidence" for Darwinist claims. Darwinistspeak is "evidence" that Darwinistspeak is true, eh?

 

[Skeeter]

Humans have similar DNA to a sea sponge. Try again.

Binary reply. Try again acknowledging that degree of similarity matters.

They are evidence, but not for evolution.

Okay. evidence of what? It seems to be very compelling evidence of evolution beyond some notion of common design. Does the Bible say man was created before animals or after? Oh, yeah it says both! Nice.

 

[7djengo7]

Does the Bible say man was created before humans or after? Oh, yeah it says both! Nice.

Man is not humans?
Humans are not man?

"it says both"

Maybe cite chapters and verses for us so we can see what you're talking about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Binary reply.

Whatever that means...

Try again acknowledging that degree of similarity matters.

I respond to what is said, not what wasn't said.

Okay. evidence of what?

Special creation and a global flood.

It seems to be very compelling evidence of evolution beyond some notion of common design.

Only when you have evolution tinted glasses on. Take them off.

Does the Bible say man was created before animals or after?

After.

Oh, yeah it says both! Nice.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Skeeter]

2First narrative: Genesis 1:1–2:3

3Second narrative: Genesis 2:4–2:25

 

[Skeeter]

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.​

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

 

[7djengo7]

2First narrative: Genesis 1:1–2:3

3Second narrative: Genesis 2:4–2:25

Ah, random citations with zero commentary from the Bible-despising Darwinist. How original and unexpected! I guess you must've forgot whatever it was you had wanted to "prove".

 

[Skeeter]

Ah, random citations with zero commentary from the Bible-despising Darwinist. How original and unexpected! I guess you must've forgot whatever it was you had wanted to "prove".

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.​

 

[7djengo7]

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.​

Why do you say that? I'm not seeing that it says man was created before animals.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why do you say that? I'm not seeing that it says man was created before animals.

He's talking about Genesis 2:19. Working on a post that explains this.

 

[JudgeRightly]

2First narrative: Genesis 1:1–2:3

3Second narrative: Genesis 2:4–2:25

Yes, I know what you're referring to. It still doesn't say that man was created before animals.

In case you didn't realize it, Hebrew writing (like most history books) starts by giving a broad overview of events, and then delves deeper into the details afterwards.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 gives the overview, while 2:4-18 gives a more focused look. Verse 19 introduces the same animals that were made in chapter 1 into chapter two by starting with their creation, just as 2:4-7 started with the creation of man, in order to give context for what would be said in the rest of the verse (19) and onwards. It's not saying "And then God made [the animals]." It's simply giving context for Adam giving the animals names. What animals? The ones God formed out of the ground.

 

[7djengo7]

Does the Bible say man was created before animals or after? Oh, yeah it says both! Nice.

I see you've altered your post since I quoted it in my post, #826. Initially, you had written "humans," which puzzled me. But now you've replaced that with "animals". I note, though, that you just quietly changed it, that you had not the courtesy to acknowledge to us your transcription mistake, and to notify us that you have now fixed it; but then, your penchant for trying to gaslight others is no surprise.

 

[7djengo7]

Binary reply. Try again acknowledging that degree of similarity matters.

What do you mean by your phrase, "degree of similarity"?

How do you imagine you avoid binarity by saying "degree of similarity"?

 

[Clete]

That's illogical.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Skeeter]

Yes, I know what you're referring to. It still doesn't say that man was created before animals.

Sure does.

In case you didn't realize it, Hebrew writing (like most history books) starts by giving a broad overview of events, and then delves deeper into the details afterwards.

Okay, but that is not what happened here. I would wager two stories by different authors were jammed in together.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 gives the overview, while 2:4-18 gives a more focused look. Verse 19 introduces the same animals that were made in chapter 1 into chapter two by starting with their creation, just as 2:4-7 started with the creation of man, in order to give context for what would be said in the rest of the verse (19) and onwards. It's not saying "And then God made [the animals]." It's simply giving context for Adam giving the animals names. What animals? The ones God formed out of the ground.

No, it says every fowl and every beast was formed from the ground not brought forth from what was previously created.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sure does.

No, it doesn't, for the reason I outlined above.

Okay, but that is not what happened here.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I would wager two stories by different authors were jammed in together.

You'd be wrong.

The Pentateuch was, with a few verses excepted, written by one man, his name was Moses, a Hebrew from the tribe of Levi.

No, it says every fowl and every beast was formed from the ground

Yes, that's what I said.

not brought forth from what was previously created.

If that's what you think I said, then your reading comprehension sucks.

 

[Skeeter]

No, it doesn't, for the reason I outlined above.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



You'd be wrong.

The Pentateuch was, with a few verses excepted, written by one man, his name was Moses, a Hebrew from the tribe of Levi.



Yes, that's what I said.



If that's what you think I said, then your reading comprehension sucks.

Just driving home that if every fowl and beast were formed at that time, Adam existed before every fowl and every beast. It sure sounds like God formed them specifically to help Adam.