You're underestimating God. He uses allegories and parables many times. If you'd just set your pride aside and listen to Him on His terms, you'd do much better.
This doesn't really answer my point.
If it's literal, there is no doubt. If it's allegory, IT CAN MEAN ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.
He can also use literal history. Which is what He did.
How am i the one "Underestimating" Him?
You boldly assert "my pride" but don't back it.
Why not just accept it on His terms and be done with your new doctrines?
Take your advice. MacroEvolution was NOT **widely** believed in and PUSHED by the ATHIESTIC school system - until AFTER Darwin.
Therefore, YOUR BELIEFS ARE THE NEW ONES.
So isn't it odd that coccygeal agenesis is symptomless in almost every person that has it? That's why most people without one, never know it unless an X-ray reveals the fact. Sacral ageneis (the absence of a sacrum) is another issue. This tail is vestigial in humans, no longer functioning as a tail. As Darwin pointed out, such rudimentary organs may evolve a different function. It no longer serves as an organ of balance or communication, but if it is present, it is part of the lower sacrum.
I've already shown you that it has a function.
And even if it was a tail, this is DEGENERATION. Why is God "using evolution" to take away the tail? (He isn't - I'm just following from your Compromised worldview.) IF humans ever had a tail, Adam&Eve were created with one. Instantly. The Fall of Man and the GLOBAL flood (which reduced genetic diversity greatly) and degeneration over time would have knocked down any tails we may have had. Obviously, if coccyx were tails, God knew to provide a "tail" that would serve a purpose even after DEGENERATION.
ALMOST every.
Just because it's symptomless sometimes doesn't prove your point lol.
Just because something isn't neccessary to the point of symptoms doesn't make it vestigial lol. It obviously has some helpful uses. And their bodies could have adjusted to the lack of it.
As Darwin pointed out, "vestigial" does not mean "useless."
But one post, you basically said that it DID mean useless (or something like that), if i remember.
So decide which "master" you want to "serve" (which thing you want to believe) and be consistent.
Are they UseFul - or UseLess??
Your source doesn't understand biology very well.
What makes you think that?
It seems it understands it enough to point out the function.
The Appendix in humans, for example, no longer serves as a fermentation chamber as it does in some other animals. But it has Peyer's patches which produce lymphocytes, and it is also a place where your normal gut flora can hide out, when you have an intestinal infection.
I don't think it ever was a fermentation chamber. But even if it was, our race has degenerated over time.
Seems like DE evolution - LOSS of alleles/genes/features is occurring!! (but kinds are still reproducing after kind - human populous arent giving rise to monkeys!)
Degeneration - EXACTLY WHAT YEC PREDICTS.
Thank you for supporting the fact that "vestigial" organs still have a use, even after the fall & flood & time. (1,000 of years)
You've been fooled by someone who knows little more than you do.
How? Quote the thing that "fooled" me.
I don't think you're atheistic. I just think you've let them brainwash you.
Now you are trolling. Who is the darwin/macrobioevo supporter again?
I was talking about compromisers like you, who allegorize Genesis to accomodate "creation by cobbling" instead of YEC which was a conclusion that came from only the Bible. No SDA stuff needed.
So how am i supposedly brainwashed?? Do you really think that athiests are fighting against evolution?? No. They are spreading it like a virus.
As I said, the lack of a coccyx is rarely even detected when that happens. Only if part or all of the sacrum is missing, do we see medical issues. But as you learned, it merely occupies space; if it's missing the sacrum functions as muscle connections to the pelvis.
so no more "nonfunctional"? Got it.
In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.
peacefulscience.org
Seems like Athiesm's Deeptime myth, not Biblical Truth, almost turned him into an athiest. Not YEC.
Since he couldnt see the assumptions (how were the mills years dates verified, and not just assumed that each of those years passed) and he failed to factor in the Global Flood, he caved into Athiestic Christianity. HE (probably UN-intentionally) PUT SECULAR "SCIENTISTS" CLAIMS & FINDINGS ABOVE GOD'S CLEAR WORD.
He wasn't "indoctrinated" to believe that mistrusting Genesis meant mistrusting the Bible. Even the Bible says in John 3:12,
"“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
Is the Bible indoctrinating people now??! NO.
If you believe athiests OOL/OriginsBioDivy. belief over Genesis' Creation TRUTH, obviously you'll never CONSISTENTLY believe the Bible (for example, the user 'barbarian'. ), or turn nonChristian fully.
In the end, it is still the Athiest doing the damage, not the Bible.
"I believe that humanists relish this compromise by Christian leaders. For instance, a Christian teacher friend attended a ‘Teaching Evolution’ seminar for public school teachers. This seminar was designed to help teachers in public schools teach evolution more effectively. At one stage of the discussion, the question came up regarding what they should do with students who are Christians. One of the leading spokespersons for humanism in America gave the following reply (as summed up in my friend’s letter to me):
The teachers were advised to suggest to the Bible-believers to consult their clergy, who would usually assure them that belief in evolution is OK!!13
What a sad indictment on the church! The humanists use the compromising Christian leaders to further their cause to undermine the foundations of Christianity."
Too many Churches haven’t trained their people to defend the Bible against the onslaughts of evolutionary humanism; instead they’ve been
influenced by it.
LIKE YOU!!
These are just some of the questions that are thrown at Christians today to intimidate them, because the humanists know most Christians can’t answer them. God’s people have been so evolutionized that they sometimes just ignore these questions and tell people to just trust in Jesus.
“Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwin’s theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no “first” prototype or model of any species at all—no “first” dog or “first” giraffe and certainly no “first” homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no “first” human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of “sin” could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a “fall” into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed.”
. . . The role of Christ as the Second Adam who came to save and perfect our fallen species is at the heart of the New Testament’s argument for Christ’s salvific significance. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as one man’s trespass led to the condemnation of all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to salvation and life for all.” (Romans 5:18) Over the centuries this typology of Christ as the Second Adam has been a central theme of Christian homiletics, hymnody and art. More liberal Christians might counter that, of course there was no Adam or Eve; when Paul described Christ as another Adam he was speaking metaphorically. But metaphorically of what? And Jesus died to become a metaphor? If so, how can a metaphor save humanity?”
As you can see above, Athiestic Christianity and compromise is a horrible alternative to Genesis. Just believe Genesis already. Have science conform to the Bible - it's really easy to do because YEC (trusting Genesis) is confirmed by it countless times. God made science possible.
Now I'm not saying you disbelieve in Adam and Eve. My point is targeting EVOLUTION. The "one common ancestor" and the "monkey to man" evolutions, the athiest's myth.
