evolution?

[ecco]

Trust & Obey:  Please provide an example of a dog producing a non-dog

Since I am not allowed to post URL

[Trust & Obey]

On the seventh day God rested from all his work of creation, which has not come yet. This is what I thought we were talking about.

Ge 2:2

And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Ge 2:3

Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, brother. You just opened up a whole new can of worms that is completely beyond the scope of this evolution thread.

God bless ya, Zhavonay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you are saying. What I am trying to convey is that there is no such thing as evolution. God is doing everything and holding it all together as we speak. No one or no thing has ever evolved or is evolving. Man will destroy all of the oceans and rivers and lakes, all of the animals etcetera in three and a half years because he will refuse to stop sinning and acknowledge the true God and His Christ. Then the man of sin will disappear and the man of faith will appear in the twinkling of an eye in a moment at the last trump. No evolution involved.

Re 4:11

"You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."

28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.

30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Three and a half years???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep three and a half years.

Revelation 11:3-13

3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."

6 These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire.

10 because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

daniel 12

12:7

Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

12:11

And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12:12

Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zhavonay, that's regarding the GT.

[Trust & Obey]

Trust & Obey:  When I quote Darwin, Simpson, Czarnecki and Gould

[ecco]

Trust & Obey:  That wasn't me.

My apologies

[Trust & Obey]

Personally, I'll go with the thousands who believe the earth is not the center of the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see why you'd do that. It seems logical.

But, I go with the word of God. And, the Bible says that God created the animals after their kind.

We have never observed anything other than this happen, yet you maintain that it does.

Please provide an example of a dog producing a non-dog.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please provide proof that God exists, or that the bible is factual, or that Jesus walked the earth. Oh the bible? I give that as much credit as you give radiometric dating. So let's start from there shall we? You discount one of my evidentiary sources and I discount one of yours which gives us an even place to start. Now start providing additional evidence to a 8000 to 6000 year old earth. I'll start with paleontology and archeology, cosmology and geology, zoology and animal husbandry... I could go on.

Isn't the Bear a relative of the Wolf and the Dog? Are Frogs and Toads related?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The difference is that I admit that Christianity is religious in nature and requires faith. You, indirectly, just admitted the same about evolution, which is a first.

Indeed, evolution is a religion requiring faith, just as Christianity is.

[ecco]

Trust & Obey:  Indeed, evolution is a religion requiring faith, just as Christianity is.

Webster.com:  Religion - the service and worship of God or the supernatural

There are many differences between religion and science. Most notably, religion (Christianity in this case) takes two documents written ~3500 years ago and ~2000 years ago and tries to live with and explain away the inconsistencies. Science takes the knowledge accumulated over thousands of years and constantly builds on it. It looks at inconsistencies and does research, thereby eliminating the wrong assumptions and building on the right assumptions.

[fenwar]

Hello all, sorry about the delay in replying - we've been away staying at my mother-in-law's this weekend.

Evolution is alledged to have happened millions of years ago. Nobody was there. Nobody saw it. We have ZERO evidence of it.

Even in Young-Earth Creationism, nobody was there for the first six days of earth's history. This is not an eyewitness account. (From whose point of view is Genesis 1 written?)

If you believe that the text was "divinely dictated" then you can say that it is God's own eyewitness account; but you still have to account for the possibility that this could be a simplified account of what actually took place. Remember that it probably wasn't written down until at least Moses' time; before then, it would have been transmitted orally. The structure of the passage is rhythmic and poetic, with repetition ("and there was evening, and morning..."; "and God said...") dividing the narrative into memorable chunks.

Genesis 1's description of the creation is organised into every category that the Israelites can see around them. Night and day; The earth itself, with sky and sea; the sun, moon and stars in the heavens (It doesn't say "God created other planets" because they didn't know there were other planets, for example.) Every living thing after its kind - because as the Israelites could see, reproduction is not a free-for-all in which elks breed with grasshoppers and carp breed with giraffes.

The Bible doesn't contain a complete description of evolution because it would be long-winded, hard to remember, confusing to ancient audiences, and simply not relevant to Biblical theology.

Every "missing link" has been proven a fraud (Lucy' date=' Piltdown Man, etc.), and modern microbiology has all but ruled out evolution as a viable possibility. What Darwin once thought to be "a simple cell" is far more complex than he could have imagined. Did you know that a single-celled organism is more complex than our Space Shuttle?[/quote']

Yes... Complexity is not a problem.

Why do you think every single living thing contains DNA?

Evolution is nothing more than the same old lie that Satan told Eve..

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Evolution is the teaching that "there is no God of man, but man himself." We can be Gods. We started out as an amoeba... worked out way through the animal kingdom, and here we are as humans. You know, "from the goo, through the zoo, to you!"

The next step on the evolutionary plane is that we evolve into a "higher consciousness." New Age mysticism repackaged as "science."

"Evolution" doesn't teach this. Secular philosophies teach this. New Agers have taken the scientific theory and imagined a forward extrapolation in order to appeal to the masses.

Christianity needs to get hold of this point. Evolution is accepted as part of our history. We need to show that the Christian message is still just as relevant, not retreat into a ghetto with our own isolated scientific research and our own schools.

Evolution violates the very core teaching of the Bible. They are 100% incompatible. Theistic evolution is nothing more than "theists" attempting to mesh the two opposing views. But, it cannot happen because they are inherently contradictory.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Do you believe the Bible? If so, do you believe God when He says that He created "every living creature after their kind?"

Yes, I believe the Bible. I also believe that God created "every living creature after their kind" - because that's exactly what I see today with my own eyes. That's exactly what the Israelites saw too.

I really think that you (and a large number of other interpreters) are reading far too much into the word "kind" (the Hebrew word translated "after their kind" or "according to their kinds" is "min"). Firstly I don't think this is intended to convey any kind of biological data. Secondly we know that the Israelite taxonomy was somewhat flawed (e.g. they categorised rabbits in the group of creatures that chewed the cud).

I really think that it does violence to the text to suggest that Genesis 1 rules out the possibility of speciation.

If you don't believe in the Bible, then you have bigger problems than "did we evolve or not."

...

When you get to the bottom of it, evolution is a silly, silly philosophy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is not a philosophy! It's a scientific theory based on observation of the animal kingdom, right from its very inception to the present day.

I agree that a philosophy purely based on evolution would be very silly (New Agers tend to come across that way ) - man is not merely the product of a sequence of random mutations. He is God's creation and desperately needs to know what that means. But if we insist on perpetuating this false dichotomy between "religion" and "science" we rapidly erode any chance we have of doing that.

The other thing I do accept, believe it or not, is that evolution is unproven - it may happen that the scientific community does uncover evidence that will refute the extant theory. But it might also happen that evidence will be found that proves it beyond doubt - and at that point, Christianity needs to be ready.

My theology is not based on evolution; it's based on God creating everything.

fenwar' date=' you must have a different God than I do. My God said He created them after their own kind. Not after the kind of an amoeba.[/quote']

Evolution does not say I'm genetically the same as an amoeba though. I don't have the option of reproducing with an amoeba; it's not at all feasible (let alone what my wife would say ). That doesn't rule out the possibility that we have a common ancestor. After all, our genetic data is stored in the same format!

Why would God use a system that includes misfits and distortion to arrive at what He could just "speak into existence?"

Look at the story of Israel, it's jam packed with misfits and distortion. Sarah, Jacob, Gideon, David. Liars, cheats, cowards and adulterers, sinners just like you and me. All part of a plan of salvation that he could have just "spoken into existence".

If you believe in the Bible' date=' then you cannot believe in evolution.[/quote']

If you believe in an inflexibly literal interpretation of the Bible, yes. If you believe the Genesis passages aren't intended to be interpreted in this way, it's not a problem at all.

This is exactly the point ecco is making. The church used to believe that the earth was at the centre of the universe and did not move; based on such poetic verses as Psalm 93.1. When it became apparent that it did not, the church (eventually) realised that it had misinterpreted this poetic passage.

I am saying that we should be able to make the same re-interpretation based on the scientific evidence for evolution.

Or, at the very least, that we should be prepared to.

Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God' date=' there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale.[/quote']

Again: this is a straw man. Scientists are attempting to honestly explain the evidence before them. Such as dinosaurs, the geological record, and the continual expansion of the universe. I agree that some atheists attempt to claim that evolution proves the Bible wrong. They are as misguided in their claims as those who insist that the Bible must be taken literally.

There are many differences between religion and science. Most notably' date=' religion (Christianity in this case) takes two documents written ~3500 years ago and ~2000 years ago and tries to live with and explain away the inconsistencies. Science takes the knowledge accumulated over thousands of years and constantly builds on it. It looks at inconsistencies and does research, thereby eliminating the wrong assumptions and building on the right assumptions.[/quote']

I'd point out that we didn't find these ancient documents yesterday though - they've been a part of the Judaeo-Christian community since they were written (see "The Bible" thread for my take on this). And our interpretation of these documents has changed as we've learned more about the universe - we've eliminated wrong assumptions such as "the earth is in a fixed position" (see above). My own view is that Young-Earth Creationism is another of those incorrect assumptions.

Three and a half years???

Three and a half is one of those Biblical symbolic numbers (like "40 days and 40 nights"). In this case it's half of seven. Sevens in the Bible usually represent perfection; when the Bible says seven years it usually means "a good length of time". Three and a half is "a bad length of time" - hence it is referred to frequently in Daniel and other prophetic/apocalyptic literature as a time of persecution or generally of bad stuff happening.

HTH

Fenwar

(ok, I dunno why my quote tags aren't working... if a moderator can fix them I'd be very grateful...)

Edited June 26, 2005 by fenwar

[Guest Martin Pratt]

If you believe in evolution, you deny the authority of scripture. The word of God has no mention of evolution. The Bible is the word of God and it clearly says in 1 Corinthians 4 v6 "Do not go beyond what is written". Of course, God's grace has allowed us to discover many things about science but believing in evolution basically says God is not telling the whole truth in his word. It clearly says that in genesis that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. Evolutionists believe there was a nothingness that kind of evolved into nothing and then the universe evolved from this nothing and the earth was by a completely freak accident just the right distance from the sun. Then by chance the human body was evolved from this nothing. Sorry, but I advise u to put your faith in the loving creator that is Jesus Christ. It is not a sin to believe in evolution but maybe misguided?

[Bread_of_Life]

Foglight, Horizoneast,

Why are you calling each other friend, when it's clear you don't like each other?

And Fog, why are you bothering? Havn't you noticed the common denominator in acrimonious, fruitless and senseless arguments about evolution, atheism and such like? Yes, you guessed it, your "friend".

[fenwar]

What “false dichotomy” is being perpetuated?

This one:

Darwinism soundly rejects God – the Bible soundly rejects Darwinism.

Perhaps Darwin's findings led him to reject God. But perhaps that was an unjustified conclusion.

The Bible cannot "reject Darwinism" because Darwin didn't live until a considerable time after the canon was finalised. Unless there's a prophecy I've missed somewhere.

fenwar,

The Bible doesn't contain a complete description of evolution because it would be long-winded, hard to remember, confusing to ancient audiences, and simply not relevant to Biblical theology.

The Bible doesn’t contain a complete description of evolution because the Bible does not support common ancestry in any possible way - never has.

The Bible doesn't describe how planets orbit around the sun due to the perfect balance of gravity and motion, either. Should I stop believing in the solar system?

The Bible isn't a science textbook. It doesn't need to be.

The whole point of the creation stories in Genesis is to establish God's sovereignty over absolutely every sphere of creation - he conceived and formed everything, he gave it all a purpose and he alone has the right to judge it. I believe that 100%. No scientific theory I know of comes close to contradicting that.

Do you think the creation stories were intended to convey something else? If so, what? And more importantly - why?