How is this? That would throw off the the creation of man, the way sin came into the world, and basically throwing the WHOLE entire book of Genesis out of the Bible..can someone please explain this to me.
BigQuill09,
Many people who are Christians read Genesis as a representational accounting of God creating the universe and mankind. a day for God can be eons for mankind, and thus, within this framework both Genesis and evolution can comfortably co-exist for the Christian.
Bub
And many more do not...
Have you tried asking your teacher how she reconcilles the two?
hi big, you are right evolution is the devils religion . It takes faith to believe that fairy tale from hell.Try to get a private meetihg with teach.Before you meet study up on the fossil record. THERE IS NONE! Evolution is bankrupt. NO TRANSITIONAL RECORD. SHOULD BE EVERYWHERE! Dr Carl Baugh[Spelling?] Is a great source.[He has a creation museum in Texas.]Also David Hovine[Spelling?] has a creation museum in Pensacola.Carbon dating is a joke! Dr Baugh has a cowboy boot with a petrafied leg in it. Carbon dates to some ancient time like BC 4000. What a farse!Another BIG BIG BIGGIE,Is separation of species.Play it backwards and it stops immediately. In otherwords a parrot cant make a chicken,and a swan cant make a duck! And get this;a monkey cant make a man.[Pray Pray Pray and ask God for an entrance to this teacher and ask God to go before you]....But if I were you I would do it In private,BUT NOT ALONE ,TAKE A FRIEND.I think you will do fine. please keep me posted!......God bless,David
A few years ago it was fairly popular practice for Bible teachers to claim to find in the Scriptures confirmation of almost every new discovery made by science. Apparently no one noticed that the scientist had to find it before the Bible teacher could, and it never seemed to occur to anyone to wonder why, if it was there in the Bible in such plain sight, it took several thousand years and the help of science before anyone saw it.Now, I believe that everything in the Bible is true, but to attempt to make it a textbook for science is to misunderstand it completely and tragically. The purpose of the Bible is to bring men to Christ, to make them holy and prepare them for heaven. In this it is unique among books, and it always fulfills its purpose when it is read in faith and obedience.
A.W. Tozer
We can agree that the bible is not a science book per se. The scriptures do not explain how to pasteurize milk or land on the moon.
However the bible remains a book of certain material facts. Christians consider the bible to be book of material history...a book that faithfully represents facts of Earthly history. We regard the essential facts of history recorded in the bible with the same clout that we give modern historical 'research'. We categorize the annals, narritives, memoirs, geaneologies, events, as far more then mere 'wisdom' literature. The scriptures claims of authoritative spiritual truth are intrinsically intertwined with specific records of material history. If we excuse away the written history of the bible, we denude the spiritual authority of the bible.
This is not to say that we can add to what is not written, but that we cannot excuse or explain away what is written.
Blessings,
MC
Brother Mike,
"The scriptures claims of authoritative spiritual truth are intrinsically intertwined with specific records of material history. If we excuse away the written history of the bible, we denude the spiritual authority of the bible."
Very much appreciate the way you've put this. Think also of John 3:12 and Luke 16:31.
While the Bible may not be a book of science, or archeology, or history, yet it does touch upon these things and quite often. So when the fashions of secular thought run contrary to what Scripture says shouldn't there be a balance in how we respond?
Must be somewhere in or between these...
[i] Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
[i]Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Chris
crsschk wrote:
And many more do not...
Have you tried asking your teacher how she reconcilles the two?
No doubt someone has already pointed you to Answers in Genesis or other Creationist websites. Look up "Evolution" in the search on this site too, there is at least one recent thread on it.
But, as Bubba said, there are Christians, even ones with a good knowledge of science, who do manage to believe in Evolution as well (how they do it I don't know, but they do!) Which means that Genesis, and no doubt other historical accounts in the Bible, need to be reinterpreted in a non-historical way.
I had just started on a biological sciences degree course when I found the Lord.
A few months later I was challenged by a Christian doctor who said, "How can you believe in Evolution if you're a Christian?"
I was furious, but because he was a doctor and I was only a young first year student, couldn't really argue with him. No doubt you could have the same problem with your teacher. Pray for your teacher that the Lord will open his/her eyes as He did mine.
I was so angry that it brought me up short. I wondered, "Why am I so angry if its only a theory? I must have been brainwashed!"
Suddenly my mind was clear! I began to question the "Theory" and realised very soon that there was a great deal of evidence that made Evolution extremely unlikely even as a scientific hypothesis (a theory has to have had much experimental evidence to suggest its true before it can be called that. Which Evolution doesn't have)
There was even a non-Christian lecturer (he would probably call himself a humanist) who didn't believe in Evolution on scientific grounds.
Blessings
Jeannette
My Mother and Sister who are both Christians believe that God created the heaven and the earth, while believing that things do evolve. For example, Languages evolve, landscapes change, Islands appear, even today our weather is changing, etc.. etc.. We even evolve in our Christian walk, look at this verse:
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Darwin was demon possessed, however there is nothing wrong with the word evolution when applied to good solid bible teaching.
I think this is about "macroevolution" - the theory of humans evolving from primates; the primates also having evolved from something else that had its ultimate genesis in the sea. This is what people normally think of when they hear the word "evolution": a glob of primordial soup - the slithering motherslug - from which all animate beings had their beginning.
I'm going to go out on a limb here (as my supposed ape ancestors did) and say this... and remember, this is only my opinion...
One can not be a true Christian and also believe in Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution denies the existence of a Creator God, and contradicts the Bible by denying God. It considers the creation account to be a myth.
If the Genesis account of creation is a myth (otherwise known as a lie), then you have to call Jesus a liar because the Gospels refer to creation. Jesus did as well. Therefore, if Jesus, who claimed that He was the way, [b]the truth
Paul referred to Adam on several occasions to make his points about how sin entered into the picture, to explain God's order concerning men and women, etc. If we say Paul's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit... and the Holy Spirit had Paul write about a creation that didnt happen... then the Holy Spirit is a liar.
... and the whole Bible crumbles at our feet.
No, you must believe in creation or evolution. Choose you this day whom you will serve. Christ or Darwin.
And, by the way, there is [b]not one[b]BUT
....and the earth is only 6,000 yrs old, ya'll.
Krispy
Brethren,
It is important to realize that 'evolution' does indeed ocur, in the strictest sense that things do change as time goes by.
Variation within created kinds is normal... how else can you get a chihuahua (SP?) and a St. Bernard out of the same dog stock? This is known as MICROevolution, or speciation. Variety is a part of God's creation!
To say that a primordial soup of amino acids developed into a cell, which somewhow managed to divide by mitosis, then gradually develop into a multicellular organism capable of sexual reproduction... that is MACROevolution, the belief that one kind can give rise to another if given enough time.
Life depends on organization. Think about this: A mosquito is an incredibly complex flying organism, with many thousands of parts functioning in precise order... for now!
SWAT!
I just disorganized that mosquito with my flyswatter. Are all the original parts still there? Yes. Is it a living organism now? No. Why is that? The organization has been taken away.
Yet there are those who will deny Biblical revelation and commonsense logic to say that this highly complex but now disorganized mosquito [originally] developed through DISORGANIZED random processes.
Hmm... ;-)
Praise the Lord that He told us just exactly what He did, and didn't befuddle us with some cloudy, unlcear revelatory statements!
Krispy, here's the deal with my position. I believe the Bible is spiritually inerrant. It conveys essential truths about the Triune God that created all things and stands to judge all things at the close of time. It relates His involvement in the Hebrew race and how He offered His fallen creatures (man) a means of forgiveness and redemtion through love and His Son's pure and holy sacrifice.
The essential Truths of the Book are Love conquers all things and those who persevere will be rewarded by the Father.
these essential Truths don't need any foundation in the earth's crust, in sedimentary rock or any kind of fossils. they take Faith in Christ given for us.
if you want to continue to call me a godless heathen, go ahead, i forgive you. bub
The essential Truths of the Book are Love conquers all things and those who persevere will be rewarded by the Father.
My mother believes this - and she's a Kabbalist. She reads the Pentateuch and Zohar every morning and night. She believes the Bible is spiritually inerrant also...but has many questions as to what is to be taken [i]literally
Adam and Eve and the serpent? Cryptic symbolism. Jonah and the fish? Symbolism. Crossing the Red Sea? Symbolism. According to her Rabbi, they all contain spiritual truths, but only allegorically. Anyone who believes they [i]actually
I believe one of the best ways to gauge where a person truly stands in Christ is to ascertain his/her take on the [i]literal[i]spiritually[i]truly
Brother Paul
Anyone who believes they actually happened is...well, a moron.
Oy Vey!!
NewCovWinDor wrote:Praise the Lord that He told us just exactly what He did, and didn't befuddle us with some cloudy, unlcear revelatory statements!
Amen!
It rained here today. If my daughter asked her teacher what caused the rain do I think that she should answer, God did. I would have no problem with that but i would also have no problem (and would expect her) with her also giving the scientific answer.
Is that a compromise. Does the fact that we know scientificaly what causes rain in the immediate sense take from the fact that the bible says thatr God makes it to rain. Is it a compromise. Is God just a God of the gaps, the bits we can't explain? or is he the God of the whole system. Did he knit me together in my moters womb as the psalms say or was ther a biological process? Was it both-in other words was there a process that operated and then God stepped in every now and then with an intelligent design miracle. Or are they one and the same thing. Is the process not the work of God?
Are the weather systems not the work of God, and why not the evolution of life also?
Hi Bubbaguy, how are you?
I wanted to comment upon something you mentioned here if that is alright. You said
"...these essential Truths don't need any foundation in the earth's crust, in sedimentary rock or any kind of fossils. they take Faith in Christ given for us."
I was thinking though, isn't the entrance of death into this world through the sin of Adam an essential truth of the Bible also? For instance where Paul says in Romans chapter 5,
[i]...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
He is linking death and sin to an historic person, who the Bible also says is in the genealogy of Christ Jesus(Luke 3:23,38). We can not believe that the Man Christ Jesus, who is also called the Last Adam, that He has a mythologoical or fictitious first ancestor, can we?
Chris
Are the weather systems not the work of God, and why not the evolution of life also
It is important to realize that weather systems are described from observable and measurable events that occur over the period of hours to weeks. Darwninian (Macro) Biological Evolution by it's very 4.5 billion year proposition is frustratingly unobservable and unmeasurable. In fact, it would be better to compare evolution with other natural philosophic systems in that has a highly defined rationality but is ultimately untestable.
So we cannot compare Climatology with Darwinism anymore then we can compare astronomy with astrology. The former is supported purely with incontrovertable data, the latter is can only be held together with controvertable philosophic pretext.
We can observe the complete cycle of water, air currents, and temperature in our world. Yet not only are the origins of life beyond observation, the mutation of one order of animal into another has never been observed...it is impossible to demonstrate or prove even with modern genetic science. You have never heard of a succesful experiement evolving a reptile into a mammal solely with reconfiguring existign reptile DNA. If it were possible by chance in nature...it would be all the more possible with intelligent modern science.
Surely the economic rewards of successful macro animal evolutionary breeding would be immense. Consider the livestock industries. Inspite of all our genetic and husbandry sciences, sheep and cattle remain fixed within narrow uncrossable boundaries.
Scientist can recreate weather conditions on a limited scale...why can't they recreate evolution?
Blessings,
MC
We can observe the complete cycle of water, air currents, and temperature in our world
But don't you believe that God couses the weather?
Krispy wrote
No, you must believe in creation or evolution. Choose you this day whom you will serve. Christ or Darwin.
I choose Truth, which led me to Jesus, and tells me things about the obeservable world that God, in His infinate compassion and mercy, decided not to reveal to us in Genesis - so we could explore His marvellous universe ourselves and always uncover some new truth about cirque glaciers, or giant squid, or a burrowing dinosaur... I don't read Genesis to learn where the gold is in northern Alberta, I hire a geologist... But I won't ask him a thing about salvation. When I wanted to know the way to God, I searched my scriptures, searched the internet, and eventually found SI, listened to Tozer, and was converted. And if I want to find out about small dinosaur fossils that have feathered wings, reptilian skin, and a toothed mouth - or giant dinosaurs with beaks... I'll consult with paleontologists or at least buy a good book on the subject.
And don't you dare try to tell me I'm doomed for all eternity because I can't believe in Jesus [i]and
Now that the Holy Spirit's come, I don't think an alien invasion would shake my faith in Jesus... especially if they looked like locusts...
ChrisJD said
...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
That still doesn't explain everything. Like why did veritable killing machines like Lions have canine teeth in the Garden - if they were herbavores before "death entered into the world"? Did mosquitoes not suck blood at that time?
but don't you believe that God couses the weather?
Of course!
I was simply questioning putting Darwinism in the same 'scientific' category as weather measurement. Witness that the bible discusses God's interference with weather...something that is philosophically illegal in Darwininian evolution as well as any unformitarian (cyclic, unchanging, mechanical) view of natural history.
Taco, merely by crediting God with causing and influencing biological life you are no longer believing in Evolution...you believe in Intelligent Design!
(EDIT:) Brother, in case I seemed out of line 'telling' you what you believed I felt a few quotes from evolutionists were in order. Note how they use evolution as a philosophical stepping ground for pushing God out of creation. This is why I felt confident to say you do not believe in Evolution...at least not according to definition of the Evolutionist.
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no Supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." (Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview", in Evolution after Darwin, 1960 p. 41.)
"I use the word humanist to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers." (Julian Huxley, American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.)
"With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in." (Ernst Haeckel, "The Riddle of the Universe", 1899, p. 337.)
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the SORRY REMAINS of the SON of GOD. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then CHRISTIANITY is NOTHING." (G.R. Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 9-78, Vol. 20, p. 30
Blessings,
MC
Sorry for getting mad, Krispy.
Taco, merely by crediting God with causing and influencing biological life you are no longer believing in Evolution...you believe in Intelligent Design!
We can observe the complete cycle of water, air currents, and temperature in our world.
So where is God in the weather system? It rained today. Which bit of the weather system did God step into to cause it to rain? You are missing my point. The weather system observable and explainable as it is, is the work of God.
We can all accept that. We see no contradiction. I am merly pointing out that evolution being the work of God does not contradict him being creator. I am not talking about him stepping in every now and then to influence the system.
I don't think we are talking about a meaningful contradiction.
Yet you should be mindful when telling others you believe in evolution...you may not be aware of it but most of the scientific community understands this term to mean a strictly naturalistic godless system. If you still prefer to identify yourself with Evolution, you should understand this is how the average Evolutionist will intepret your beliefs. To the Evolutionist, God (at least the God of the bible) is a primitive social myth, the obsolete Deus ex machina that modern science has replaced.
Intelligent Design resembles Evolutionary doctrine is every way except that I.D. allows for the influence of God. Yet, Evolutionists are as opposed to I.D as vehemently as they are opposed to short Earth creationism. If I.D agrees with the Evolutionist that there were billions of years, macro-transformation, and the cone of simple to complex life development, then where does their indignant pugnacity and tryannical rejection of I.D stem from?
From the heart.
Blessings,
MC
Here is a quote from an interview with scientist Kenneth Miller, that I like.
ActionBioscience.org: In your book, Finding Darwin’s God, you write, “in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.” How is your view different from that of creationists or proponents of intelligent design, who argue against evolution?Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
Hi Corey,
"That still doesn't explain everything. Like why did veritable killing machines like Lions have canine teeth in the Garden - if they were herbavores before "death entered into the world"? Did mosquitoes not suck blood at that time?"
In regards to Romans 5:12...
I agree, it doesn't explain much about what those things might have been for, but it does seem straighforward in saying there wasn't any death before Adam's sin. Soooo... what about those teeth and so on...
Well, I think if we take the whole revelation of Scripture, I would not find it hard to imagine that God designed the creatures with this cursed world in mind(see Romans 8:20-22 for example), that is, at least insomuch as He planned for the contingencies of life in this world, in their original designs.
We're only left to imagine ways in which these things which seem to us now to be only suitable for life in such a world as ours, full of violence, how these things could have once been usefull otherwise, and benign.
Not meaning at all to be curt or overly simplistic, but I think of the scripture which says all things are possible with God.
Chris
We're only left to imagine ways in which these things... could have once been useful otherwise, and benign.
But herein lies the central problem in the creationists' argument: we, as Christians, worship the Christ, who is the Truth. We cannot "imagine ways" to prove sciences' square pegs into the Bible's round holes.
If I were worried about losing the presence of the Holy Ghost because what scientists observe about the Universe suggest it's a couble billion years older than originally thought... I'd have to sit down, pray, and reassess my faith. Because my God is the God of Truth, not the God of "I hope it's like this".
I, for one, can't wait to hear about the next big discovery in astronomy, in paleontology, or in archaology. And I personally hope that when I meet all of you beyond the pearly gates, Jesus might lend a small angel who's not working for the next millennium to take me on a tour of the Universe.
MY 200TH POST!!! YAY FOR ME!!!
I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God.
Thanks for sharing this Taco.
I am a representative of the "they" Miller talks about. His comments about me are false. He is misinformed.
I can interact with all of the data he has access to without exluding God from it's existence. There is no scientific reason to exclude God from nature. The decision is essentially metaphysical.
This is why I am opposed to identifying myself with Evolution. Words have public meaning, at least among the people who control the words. We cannot synthesis our beliefs with their terminology without altering our beliefs. The true Evolutionist repulses any fraternity with the Christian...so why do we feel the need to identify with their cause?
Some of us can't believe in a young Earth. That is perhaps understandable. Yet an intellectual struggle with young earth creationism does not mean that the only alternative for belief is in a doctrine that in it's most unconcealed form is inherently materialistic, athiestic and the philosophic pulpit for all the moral relativity and intellectual dispair that plagues western civilization.
Blessings brother,
MC
and the earth is only 6,000 yrs old, ya'll.
Krispy, you are so far off. By my calculations, the earth is much closer to 10,000 y/o ;-)
Hey Bubba, tell me how evolution explains the transparency of the human cornea so we could see our predators and not be extinguished, and then we can start discussing evolution. Besides, my Bible tells me that God formed man out of the dust of the ground. In your spritual/allegorical Bible, does "dust" mean apes? How many millions/billions/trillions/quadrillions/sextillions of years does it take to get living, breathing cells to form in a vacuum? Sorry dude, evolution as taught in biology books is absolutely, unequivacally incompatible with the Bible of Jesus, Paul, Peter et. al
Hi again Corey,
"We cannot "imagine ways" to prove sciences' square pegs into the Bible's round holes."
But maybe we don't have to? Maybe the only reason the square-pegs exist is because ungodly men have invented them because they didn't accept the Bible's round holes to begin with?
[i]The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge
Possible anyway?
Chris
Maybe the only reason the square-pegs exist is because ungodly men have invented them because they didn't accept the Bible's round holes to begin with?
These same men (Godly or no, only God knows for sure) discovered physcics, astrophysics, made rockets and shuttles... and out of this space-age technology came stuff like computers, and the internet, and mp3s, and mp3 recordings of guys like Tozer that helped save a sinner like me.
They're not "inventing" supernovas, dinosaur bones, and tectonic plates - these things actually exist.
I'm floored at the prospect that (and I might be wrong) the thing that makes "Christians" so angry when someone (especially a non-believer) discovers a thing that God hasn't yet reveiled to believers - is that we arrogantly assume we have the corner on Truth.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge
Amen to that!!!
Corey,
"They're not "inventing" supernovas, dinosaur bones, and tectonic plates - these things actually exist."
No I wouldn't suggest that either. It's the [b]stories
It sort of reminds me of the passage in the book of Acts where it says
"(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)"
[i] The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
Maybe we should distinguish here between the operational sciences and their fruits and the speculations and stories that are made about unobservable events in a supposed millions and billions of years of Earth's history. These are not the same things. As I understand it, many of the founders of the modern branches of Science, which have to do with things that are measurable, testable, and repeatable, were men who believed the Bible to some degreee or other and in Creation.
Chris
Hi Corey,
I'm floored at the prospect that (and I might be wrong) the thing that makes "Christians" so angry when someone (especially a non-believer) discovers a thing that God hasn't yet reveiled to believers - is that we arrogantly assume we have the corner on Truth.
If your'e taking a survey I would like to offer that scientific discoveries and inventions by non-Christians do not offend me in the slightest. I'm typing this post on a Macintosh computer...I regard Steve Jobs and the other gurus at Apple with admiration and some measure of gratitude. Yet I realize that Jobs and I would probably have very little in common theologically speaking.
In fact human genius regardless of faith or field of study, whether it be science, or the arts ect. can sometimes move me to tears as I think about how wonderful God has made mankind.
I do not have a corner on truth. :smart: For instance I find the feathery dinosaur fossils being found in a quarry in China to be very interesting. Still I do not believe that science has a satisfactory explanation how these remarkable little critters came into existance.
I think most of the reason we are flummoxed by fossils is because we have accepted the question as framed by the evolutionists. They presume that fossils are the scientific equivilant of the windmill dunk on the basketball court, while somehow avoiding having to explain how feathers, which are complex and irreducible designs, emerged from scales. Inspite of their impotence to provide a truly plausible explanation, they feel confident in presenting this mystery as a concrete evidence of evolution. All the while we have accepted that fish, lizards. snakes, and dinosaurs have scales but the fact that not all of these are called reptiles is not any special discovery.
So apparently feathers and scales are on a diverse group of animals. This simple observation does not establish that which is unobservable. It only proves that nature is not bound by the superimposition schemata of cladistics; an imperfect categorization template not given to us by God afterall...but by men.
I do not bring up feather dinosaurs to ignite a scientific discussion...only to demonstrate that the Christian can readily accept that they do not know everything. The thing that troubles me is how the Evolutionist expects, and often enjoys, unquestioned authority over mysteries that they really can't explain either.
Blessings brother,
MC
[i][color=CC0000]The majority of Christians in churches probably aren't sure whether God really created everything in six literal days. Many believe it doesn't matter whether it took six days or six million years. However, it is vital to believe in six literal days for many reasons. Foremost is that allowing these days to be long periods of time undermines the foundations of
the message of the Cross.[/color]
Click here to see the rest of the article, "The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp
Being Christian (in name) in this day and age is no different than saying your a Republican or Democrat. It's a "party" of sorts that has no real meaning whatsoever when someone declares it nowadays.
As to the creation vs evolution thingy... its not choosing between Christ or Darwin, its choosing between God or Man.
Macro-evolution is simply incompatible with the Bible.
Want proof? Pick up your Bible and go to Genesis, first chapter. God does not lie.
Jordan
JennRich said
Click here to see the rest of the article, "The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days."
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void..." (GEN 1:1-2)
If the earth was without form it is [i]not[i]void[i]didn't exist
So, if we don't have a rotating planet orbiting the Sun, the whole 24-hour, literal day argument falls apart - since one full rotation of our existing, spherical planet is what we consider a "day".
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (GEN 1:5)
On the Second Day, God created the Heavens.
It wasn't until the Third Day that he gathers "the waters under heaven", and lets "the dry land appear". (GEN 1:9) The earth is finally created. [i]Now
I don't want to put a stumbling block in anyone's way. I just ask that we "gird up our minds" and "think".
jordanamo said
Want proof? Pick up your Bible and go to Genesis, first chapter. God does not lie.
I just did. And you're right, He doesn't.
Corey... I forgive ya for getting mad. As I said, I was stating my "opinion". Not fact. Then I explained why I hold that opinion. If someone disagrees with my opinion I'm ok with it.
DNA is prooving Darwinian Evolution false, by the way... just like it's prooving Mormonism to be a 18th century joke.
And every once in awhile someone interjects that there is evolution among species and such... I dont think anyone disputes that. But we're clearly discussing [b]Darwins
By the way, my friend Bubba... You are a classic gnostic. The way you interpret the Bible is fascinating. I wonder tho... how do you handle it when the Apostles preach against the very religion that you subscribe to? Much of the Apostles' writings was meant to counter gnosticism.
Krispy
Krispy, could you elaborate please. I'm not sure what you mean by "classic gnostic."
bub
arighty guys, from what i know, death came from adam both spiritual and physical as in this verse:
1 Corinth 15: 20-22
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
trying to explain this verse away into spiritual death is like
an arminian trying to explain romans 8 and 9
and
a calvinist trying to explain hebrews 10 or the multiple times jesus warned the churches to come back before he left them.
it's possible but the explanation is terrible
yall be blessed and a blessing
Matt
Phil 2:10-11
Corey_H wrote:"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void..." (GEN 1:1-2)
If the earth was without form it is
[i]not[/i] a sphere, since a sphere is a "form". If the earth was[i]void[/i] it was a no-thing; it did not exist. I believe, given this Biblical evidence, I can assume the earth was a concept, or an idea, at this point since it had no form and[i]didn't exist[/i] .So, if we don't have a rotating planet orbiting the Sun, the whole 24-hour, literal day argument falls apart - since one full rotation of our existing, spherical planet is what we consider a "day".
Hi Bro. Corey, I have an even stronger argument for your own opinion -- even though I don't agree with it! It's that the sun itself wasn't created until day 4.
But [i]light
I believe the strongest argument FOR six literal days is this: according to Scripture, death did not exist until after Adam sinned. This completely rules out the millions of years that dinosaurs & other animals were to have existed -- they couldn't have killed and fed off each other, because death didn't exist yet.
St. Augustine on Genesis
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
Hi Everyone,
I thought that I'd point out that Genesis is were we get the basis for wearing clothes, not murdering, obeying God, etc. If you don't take the days literally why do we have to take the other teachings in the Bible literally?
As one preacher put it, "If you can't believe the Bible from the begining, you can't believe the Bible at all!"
Jordan
Did Augustine really know God?
What is the evidence that he was born again?
What grounds do we have for thinking he was right to set mere human reason [i]above
That isn't to say we should deny reason, but we have to realise that what [i]God
Scientists are for ever inventing new theories and discarding old ones. Most scientific research is out of date even before the research paper is printed! Almost all scientific theories are hotly disputed by other scientsits.
Often it is those who are the most persuasive who get the most funding, convince other scientists and eventually the world in general, of their theories. Not necessarily those who are right!
Evolution is one example, global warming is another, the Big Bang is another, and the concept of vestigeal organs another (such as the human appendix, and more recently "junk" DNA which have since been discovered to have [i]vital
In Pasteur's time most scientists believed in spontaneous generation (the idea that life, such as bacteria in milk, arose of itself), (Evolution is a sophisticated form of that idea). Pasteur disproved it, in the face of strong scientific opinion against him...
So why should we trust man rather than God?
Jeannette
LittleGift wrote:What is the evidence that he was born again?
What grounds do we have for thinking he was right to set mere human reason
[i]above[/i] the written Word?
Amen!
These same men (Godly or no, only God knows for sure) discovered physcics, astrophysics, made rockets and shuttles... and out of this space-age technology came stuff like computers, and the internet, and mp3s, and mp3 recordings of guys like Tozer that helped save a sinner like me.
hmm...i think Pascal was a devout man that loved Jesus Christ, he is called the father of the "COMPUTER" by many in the mathematics circles.... actually, Pascal wrote more on the bible and philosophy than science and mathematics(i am not sure, but somebody correct me if i am wrong)...
modern sicence might not accept it, but i have a feeling(and this is only from what i have glanced over the lives of some and not all, scientists that studied between 10-15 cent)...that modern science owes a great deal to men and women who feared God more than they could ever know...
sb1175 wrote:These same men (Godly or no, only God knows for sure) discovered physcics, astrophysics, made rockets and shuttles... and out of this space-age technology came stuff like computers, and the internet, and mp3s, and mp3 recordings of guys like Tozer that helped save a sinner like me.
hmm...i think Pascal was a devout man that loved Jesus Christ, he is called the father of the "COMPUTER" by many in the mathematics circles.... actually, Pascal wrote more on the bible and philosophy than science and mathematics(i am not sure, but somebody correct me if i am wrong)...
modern sicence might not accept it, but i have a feeling(and this is only from what i have glanced over the lives of some and not all, scientists that studied between 10-15 cent)...that modern science owes a great deal to men and women who feared God more than they could ever know...
Yes, I've heard that Pascal was a Christian (though I was talking about Louis Pasteur, (who invented [b]pasteur
Many other scientists were believers too. In fact, assuming that Evolution is true can get in the way of good science.
I read that a treatment for back pain, based on Evolutionary ideas, caused some people years of suffering, and even permanent injury.
The assumption was that we "evolved" from four-footed animals, so our upright stance was the [i]cause
Jeannette
if you dismiss fossil evidence for the evolution of humans, can you also dismiss the genetic information in our cells and the cells of every living thing?
genes clearly show that, for example, that all mammals are genetically related, and further that all primates are genetically related. many of these primates still have their primordial genetic make up, as they kept to their habitat, and environmentally induced genetic changes did not alter them. we humans descended from those who left the forest and adapted to the plains some millions of years ago. the genetic changes are recorded in our dna.
if you dismiss this kind of factual information about nature and humans, how can you ever expect other humans and, in fact, God to deal with you in an honest and straightforward manner?
everything has to be conditioned to your biblical framework, or it isn't true.
tell me when we get to the edge of the sea, so we can steer the vessel away from the edge of the earth.
bub
bubbaguy wrote:
if you dismiss fossil evidence for the evolution of humans, can you also dismiss the genetic information in our cells and the cells of every living thing?genes clearly show that, for example, that all mammals are genetically related, and further that all primates are genetically related. many of these primates still have their primordial genetic make up, as they kept to their habitat, and environmentally induced genetic changes did not alter them. we humans descended from those who left the forest and adapted to the plains some millions of years ago. the genetic changes are recorded in our dna.
if you dismiss this kind of factual information about nature and humans, how can you ever expect other humans and, in fact, God to deal with you in an honest and straightforward manner?
everything has to be conditioned to your biblical framework, or it isn't true.
tell me when we get to the edge of the sea, so we can steer the vessel away from the edge of the earth.
bub
There is no fossil evidence for human evolution. Some "scientists" are so desperate for (non-existent) evidence that they've often invented an "ape man" from a few bits of bone, or even resorted to forgery (heard of Piltdown Man?). For example there was one supposed ape man tooth that, as usual, caused a great deal of excitment. Artists even published picturs of this "ape man" in popular scientific journals, based on this one tooth! It was later proved to be a pig's tooth! We are genetically closely related to pigs by the way - possibly closer than to some apes! Depends which bit of DNA you analyse, what conclusions you reach. Pigs as ancestors are not popular, so this evidence is hushed up, like the existence of an alcoholic auntie in a respectable family!
Neanderthal Man was just a race of ordinary men with wholly human features who made and used tools, and buried their dead as we do, and (recent scientific evidence suggests) almost certainly interbred with "modern" humans. Nowadays the Neanderthals are well on the way to be fully rehabilitated as human. As someone (an evolutionist!) said recently, if you dressed a Neanderthal in a suit and gave him a shave he could walk down a street anywhere and no-one would notice the difference from anyone else.
Other "ape men", such as "Lucy" turned out to be a kind of ape, with no distinctively human features.
Even the recently discovered "Hobbits" have been shown to be fully human.
genes clearly show that, for example, that all mammals are genetically related, and further that all primates are genetically related.
The Biblical account doesn't conflict with REAL science, except it begins with the assumption that God exists, instead of the Atheist's assumption that He doesn't.
You have to make one of these two assumptions. The conclusion you reach, [i]from exactly the same evidence
The idea that we were descended from ape-like creatures is about as logical as the idea that a dentist's forceps was descended from an electrician's pliars, because they look similar, but the forceps is more "highly evolved"; or that a shack was the ancestor of a Palace!
I love you in the Lord Bub, but don't try to argue from pseudo-science, or you will be dumped on! You have been warned ;-)
Jeannette
PS the [i][u]Bible
The power of terminology....
...all mammals are genetically related
We could just as easily say 'all mammals are genetically similar' and in doing so avoid projecting our own beliefs onto what we see.
MC
bubbaguy wrote:
if you dismiss fossil evidence for the evolution of humans, can you also dismiss the genetic information in our cells and the cells of every living thing?genes clearly show that, for example, that all mammals are genetically related, and further that all primates are genetically related. many of these primates still have their primordial genetic make up, as they kept to their habitat, and environmentally induced genetic changes did not alter them. we humans descended from those who left the forest and adapted to the plains some millions of years ago. the genetic changes are recorded in our dna.
if you dismiss this kind of factual information about nature and humans, how can you ever expect other humans and, in fact, God to deal with you in an honest and straightforward manner?
everything has to be conditioned to your biblical framework, or it isn't true.
tell me when we get to the edge of the sea, so we can steer the vessel away from the edge of the earth.
bub
Hi Bub,
The fossil record actually fits the Creation frame better then evolution. I just listened to a guy who is a member of Mensa speak about the Cambrian Explosion. Fossils help support Creation not tear it down.
Jordan
Excellent point Jordan,
...Cambrian Explosion.
The preeminent American Evolutionist Stephen J Gould wrote his book Wonderful Life on this subject...and bascially concluded no one knows how the so-called Cambrian Explosion occured. Gould lamented on behalf of the pitiable patriarch Darwin saying "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." With admirable determination to keep the faith Gould invented a theoretical solution that he called "Decimation and Diversification" which still explained nothing, but did so with great academic acumen.
Wonderful Life at least is a good title for a book...almost worshipful. How sad that the record of wonderful life captured in the Burgess Shale has been interpreted by an idealogy that denies the Wonderful Creator.
Blessings,
MC
Compton wrote:
Excellent point Jordan,...Cambrian Explosion.
The preeminent American Evolutionist Stephen J Gould wrote his book Wonderful Life on this subject...and bascially concluded no one knows how the so-called Cambrian Explosion occured. Gould lamented on behalf of the pitiable patriarch Darwin saying "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." With admirable determination to keep the faith Gould invented a theoretical solution that he called "Decimation and Diversification" which still explained nothing, but did so with great academic acumen.
Wonderful Life at least is a good title for a book...almost worshipful. How sad that the record of wonderful life captured in the Burgess Shale must interpreted by an idealogy that rejects the creator.
Blessings,
MC
Hi MC
I like:
Gould invented a theoretical solution that he called "Decimation and Diversification"[i][b]which still explained nothing, but did so with great academic acumen.[/b] [/i]
[edit] Or as in CS Lewis's novel "Perelandria". The "Eve" in the story bursts out laughing at Ransom's comment on something puzzling, "there's probably some good reason".
She said, [i]"You had nothing to say, but you put the nothing into words"
Jeannette
Compton wrote:...Wonderful Life at least is a good title for a book...almost worshipful. How sad that the record of wonderful life captured in the Burgess Shale has been interpreted by an idealogy that denies the Wonderful Creator.
And if you dare to touch their god of Evolution (of which Darwin is a Founder and Prophet), or even hint that perhaps its not real....!
There was a Botany lecturer who was obsessed with Evolution. One day we had a class that involved studying different sorts of flowers. The idea was that some were "primitive" and others more "advanced". We were supposed to examine them and study them in an "Evolutionary series".
The magnolia is suppposed to be "primitive" becasue the petals are (supposedly) arranged in a spiral pattern instead of two layers, petals and sepals, as in most flowers.
I noticed that this wasn't actually so, the petals are in three whorls of three, each whorl having petals of a slightly different shape to the other whorls.
The lecturer was furious when I pointed it out! He really hated us "heretical" Christian students who dared to question Evolutionary doctrine.
But science is [i]supposed
Blessings
Jeannette
Compton wrote:The preeminent American Evolutionist Stephen J Gould wrote his book Wonderful Life on this subject...and bascially concluded no one knows how the so-called Cambrian Explosion occured. Gould lamented on behalf of the pitiable patriarch Darwin saying "The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." With admirable determination to keep the faith Gould invented a theoretical solution that he called "Decimation and Diversification" which still explained nothing, but did so with great academic acumen.
Dr. Jackson used that quote. It's amazing that theory of evolution ever got off the ground(haha!)because Darwin and other evolutionists realize that the theory is riddled with holes. The fossil record is a major headache for them and they know it.
Jordan
I saw this column today in the news and thought of this evolution thread. I copied it from Yahoo headlines just seconds ago and now I'm posting it here. It's dated 3/28/2007. Fresh from the secular press!
NEW YORK - The big dinosaur extinction of 65 million years ago didn't produce a flurry of new species in the ancestry of modern mammals after all, says a huge study that challenges a long-standing theory.
ADVERTISEMENT
Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.
Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.
"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
At the time of the dinosaur demise, mammals were small, ranging in size between shrews and cats. The long-held view has been that once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals were suddenly free to exploit new food sources and habitats, and as a result they produced a burst of new species.
The new study says that happened to some extent, but that the new species led to evolutionary dead ends. In contrast, no such burst was found for the ancestors of modern-day mammals like rodents, cats, horses, elephants and people.
Instead, they showed an initial burst between 100 million about 85 million years ago, with another between about 55 million and 35 million year ago, researchers report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
The timing of that first period of evolutionary development generally agrees with the conclusions of some previous studies of mammal DNA, which argue for a much earlier origin of some mammal lineages than the fossil record does.
The second burst had shown up in the fossil record, MacPhee said. But he said the new study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.
Some experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a controversial "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species. It challenges paleontologists to find new fossils that can shed light on mammal history, said Greg Wilson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.
William J. Murphy of Texas A&M University, who is working on a similar project, said no previous analysis had included so many mammal species.
But, "I don't think this is the final word," he said.
The study's approach for assigning dates was relatively crude, he said, and some dates it produced for particular lineages disagree with those obtained by more updated methods.
So as for its interpretation of what happened when the dinosaurs died off, "I'm not sure that conclusion is well-founded," Murphy said.
John Gittleman, a study co-author and director of the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, said the researchers considered a range of previously reported dates for when various lineages split. They found the overall conclusions of the study were not significantly affected by which dates they chose, he said.
Researchers should now look at such things as the rise of flowering plants and a cooling of the worldwide climate to explain why ancestors of present-day mammals took off before the dinosaurs died out, Gittleman said. The cause of the later boom is also a mystery, he said.
The study's family tree includes 4,510 species, more than 99 percent of mammal species covered by an authoritative listing published in 1993. (Nearly 300 species have since been added to the listing, but the researchers said that doesn't affect their study's conclusions.) To construct it, the researchers combined previously published work that relied on analysis of DNA, fossils, anatomy and other information.
S. Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new work "pushes the envelope in the methods and data, and that's really important."
He said the demise of the dinosaurs may have affected mammal evolution by influencing characteristics like body size rather than boosting the number of new species created. Such changes wouldn't be picked up by the new study, he noted.
It's amazing that theory of evolution ever got off the ground(haha!)
I believe the theory of evolution flourished because of the philosophical climate of the 19th century. It wouldn't have been widely accepted in previous centuries, even though the idea existed in various forms since at least the ancient Greeks. Consider that none of it's fundamental conclusions actually required 19th century science or technology. A similar philosophic opportunity occurred for Marxism, which depended on a purely materialistic interpretation of civilization and history in order to 'make sense.'
Evolution begins with a metaphysical argument (or at least position) which is then supported with physical vindication.
Which is why you have articles like the one Paul West supplied, where the real world observation doesn't fit the assumptions made about it. Now someone will need to write a theoretical solution for this unexpected inconsistency. Some graduate student or professor somewhere is about to become a celebrity in the academic world!
MC
Compton wrote:It's amazing that theory of evolution ever got off the ground(haha!)
I believe the theory of evolution flourished because of the philosophical climate of the 19th century. It wouldn't have been widely accepted in previous centuries, even though the idea existed in various forms since at least the ancient Greeks. Consider that none of it's fundamental conclusions actually required 19th century science or technology. A similar philosophic opportunity occurred for Marxism, which depended on a purely materialistic interpretation of civilization and history in order to 'make sense.'
Evolution begins with a metaphysical argument (or at least position) which is then supported with physical vindication.
Which is why you have articles like the one Paul West supplied, where the real world observation doesn't fit the assumptions made about it. Now someone will need to write a theoretical solution for this unexpected inconsistency. Some graduate student or professor somewhere is about to become a celebrity in the academic world!
MC
I'm sure you are right MC, well put!
Its indeed the PHILOSOPHY of Evolution that is the real culprit. Similar to Pelmanism, or more modern versions of that error. Don't know much about it but my father had some booklets (on it). It seemed to be a kind of self-help system of positive thinking. One quote was, "EVERY DAY, IN EVERY WAY, I'M GETTING BETTER AND BETTER." Evolution in a nutshell, only Evolution is applied to all living things. Except that observation and experiment (such as breeding experiments) indicate that it just isn't true!
As with Evolution, the Bible calls people who hold such philosophies stupid! ("the FOOL says in his heart there is no God")
Bub, you believe in God! You don't REALLY want to align yourself with such fools do you?
Love in Him
Jeannette
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate