This is where we delve back into the difference between 'want' and 'need' isn't it? Your next question will be something related.. I can sense it!!

Dude let it go....this is about God having arms and legs pertaining to the role they play in the theory of Evolution

Holla! Give this man a dolla!

Okay, so where does it state he 'needs' them?

lmao, ooooo testy.

Sorry, didn't mean to keep proving you wrong.

..oh it is?

You mean the statement I made like 9 pages ago didn't sum that up for you? Ooo, dang, sorry, missed another lesson chief.

it states that he was walking in the garden ...walking generally require legs

...uh-huh.

legs would be a requirement if one was under the jurisdiction of a force stronger than themselves causing them to have the need to adapt....any disputes about that....are you still with me?

..yup!

But again, you are taking a 'want' and making it a 'need'.

Put it like this:

God is an 'orb'. (Legless, armless: for theory purposes)
God creates Earth.
God creates a tree, but the tree floats off.
God creates gravity.
Once he created gravity.
It would then expend more energy to 'float' then to simply 'give himself legs' to walk. Hands to touch and feel his creations.

Therefore, this scenario, would represent such as a 'want' not a 'need'. Because, as we know, God has no 'need' for anything.

Or is there where you tell me that now adaptation is also a need or requirement; and it cannot simply be a want; a want for things to be 'easier' whether on self or others?

it's not about you confusing want and need...the fact that God has arms and legs would mean that at some point in time he needed them...can you dispute this

..yes, because I just did in the rest of my post that you cut from the response.

At some point in time, God would have 'wanted' them.
Since God is God, I'm pretty safe in saying that there was no impeding threat on his life that DEMANDED he grow any of said limbs.

Again, a want is not a need.
God does not have 'needs'.

well it clear in the bible that he "needed" legs to walk ....

..because legs are a necessity to walk.
Therefore, for someone to walk they would 'need' legs.

It's a necessity for the concept of walking itself.

However, God did not 'need' to walk through the Garden.
He wanted to.

So, sorry, no, the bible doesn't state he 'needed' legs.
Only needed them if he wanted to walk.

Because without legs the 'life' or 'existence' of 'walking' would die off; thus making it life-threatening to an occurrence, not a person or, in this case, God.

well to stop the arguing back and forth is why I generally stick to what is in the bible ...

and according to the bible God has arms and legs for a reason beyond "want" or else that would make him Mr. Potato head with fake arms and legs and then as a joke created man in that image

but anyway..whether God wanted them or needed them the facts are is that he has them ....and that points to Evolution

..no it doesn't.

That's both your opinion and assumption and it is also based on the false presumption that you can actually, at some time and point, humanize God; which, as I've stated billions of times, you cannot.

Just because he has them now, and didn't then, doesn't mean he 'evolved'. After all, he created water, animals, the sky, humans, and the universe.

If something is 'created' it doesn't necessarily mean it 'evolved' from anything; not to mention, God wasn't created, as the Bible clingers have stated.

..and I was going by the bible as well.
God needs them to walk, it does not anywhere state he needed them period.

you just stated that God "needs" them

God needs them to walk; yes. The act of 'walking' requires legs.
God himself does NOT need legs for anything else.

The concept of walking: NEEDS legs.
The concept of God himself: Does NOT need legs.

if God needs them to walk...then he has needs.....I knew it would be a matter of time before you would "need" to say that God "needs" them....all I had to do was wait

so now let's move on ...now that we know that GOd has "needs" and you admitted to it

No, I didn't.
Jeez.

Can you read?

The concept of WALKING, its existence is threatened in the absence of LEGS. Therefore, walking cannot exist without legs.

God did NOT NEED to walk, he chose to, he wanted to; therefore to do that his see to that he had legs; because legs in a necessity to walking not to God.

GOD WOULD NOT DIE IF HE HAD NO LEGS. Therefore, him giving himself legs would be a want.

I have not today, nor tomorrow, nor yesterday, nor will I EVER state that God has a NEED for anything.

You can poke and prod all you want, but I can't nor won't change the definition of two words. It's not within my power. I am not 'Funches'.

Oh, crap, I meant God.. sorry.

>.>

This is stating that God did NOT NEED to walk, but wanted to.

It goes on to also add, that for him to walk he would need legs. Otherwise, he'd be floating, swimming, levitating, etc.

Nowhere does this state: GOD NEEDS LEGS.

WALKING NEEDS LEGS.
So if God were to walk, he would then need legs, for it is an essential to walking.

GOD DOES NOT NEED TO WALK.
Therefore, this states that he could have easily went through his garden by any necessary transportative idea he could indulge in. Would he have died had he not walked? No.

Therefore, a want, not a need.


No, wrong again.



I admitted to nothing.
Again, you didn't read it right.

you always claim that God didn't have needs ....my aim was to make you say that he did have needs ....not that I've done that....it's time for me to move on