Could God have used evolution to "create"

[Gup20]

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

This quote is from Frank Zindler, an atheist. (Frank Zindler, American atheist, in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.)

I keep looking at all the people who the evolutionists here quote: Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov, Stephen J Gould, Carl Sagan - besides a desparate faith in evolution, they all had one other very important commonality. They were all staunch atheists. Yet it is these atheists philosophical ideas that pervade the idea that "God could have used evolution to create".

Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

And again:

Psa 53:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So we can see that to disbelieve there is a God is to eschew knowledge and wisdom. In fact, the Bible says that it is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge. This is not some advancement in knowledge that comes later - it is the beginning - the most basic component of understanding.

Pro 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

To understand our origins, you must believe there is a God. This is the minimum requirement to understanding our universe.

Therefore, we can see the the Bible calls atheists fools who have no understanding of how our world was established. Yet, it is these atheists whom the evolutionists here champion as the great minds of science who's theories regarding the origins of all life must be more correct than scripture. You folks need better role models, if you ask me.

But lets pretend for a moment that the fact that all atheists believe evolution is an irrelevant fact in our discussion of "Did God use evolution to create".

Surely we can believe in God and evolution, right? Sure we can - if we change the definition of god. If we say that god is whatever we make him to be, we can attribute anything to god. Our god could be anything that we decide he should be. We can believe in god and evolution only if god is not the same God described in the Bible.

If we, for example, assume that God could use death, struggle, disease, etc and call that "very good", then we can believe in god and evolution.

The question is not "could god have used evolution", but rather "What did God actually do".

Luther dealt with the same kind of heretical doctrine in his day. Luther said:

As several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker (gup: or perhaps watchmaker) or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience.

Luther also dealt with people who swung the other way - people who thought that God was all powerful and therefore He must have created everything in the universe on the same day ... in the blink of an eye. He argued that while both theistic evolution and instantaneous creation were possible (after all God can do anything, right?), they aren't what He said that He did. Luther thought we might be best served to believe the Creator at His word. Really, Luther was trying to stand up for Biblical authority and accuracy - the same movement we see happening today in creationism.

Luther said:

When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.

That's a great way to put it - grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. If you can't wrap your logic and reason around the six days of creation, then take them by faith because that's what the Bible proclaims. And as we have seen, believing God when He speaks is the beginning of wisdom.

Dr. Don Batten of AiG puts it this way:

Some protest that ‘you can believe in God and evolution’, and that evolution does not necessarily exclude God. However, many of these people also believe that evolution explains everything. If ‘god’ had a role at all it was in ‘creating’ the early universe, or causing a big bang in such a way that evolution would operate. In other words, ‘god’s’ part is invisible, not obvious. This clearly contradicts many Bible passages which teach that creation proclaims God’s handiwork and clearly reveals his attributes (for example, Psalm 19:1–4; Romans 1:20).

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God's role was not invisible. He did not create passively, but He created actively in precisely the EXACT way specified in Genesis 1. Moreover God does not use evil to bring about good. He does not lie, and He does not make mistakes.

By the way - remember how the Bible said that those who do not believe in God are fools who are corrupt, abominable, and do no good? Well the New Testament agrees with them -

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,


2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.


2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

These verses have a direct relationship with Proverbs calling those who do not believe (faith/fear) in God fools who are without wisdom, knowledge, and understanding - who have been given over to a reprobate mind.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yes. God can do anything He wants. Are you trying to limit what God can or cannot do?

He could create in 6 24hr periods. He could create in millions or billions of years. He could create in one second.

The question is not how could He create, but how did He create?

 

[Gup20]

Yes. God can do anything He wants. Are you trying to limit what God can or cannot do?

The question is not how could He create, but how did He create?

Indeed you have answered your own question. We have not limited God to what he can or cannot do, but rather we ask the question what did God do.

Well what did He SAY He did? He said He created the earth and all the life upon it in six literal days. Is choosing to believe God when He speaks equivicable to limiting God? Indeed it is - don't you think?

For those who believe God "could do anything", perhaps that begs the question - "how about lying - can God lie?" If you believe God cannot lie, aren't you limiting God to "what He said He did"?

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Well what did He SAY He did?

I agree, this is a pivotal question. What did He SAY He did?

Originally posted by Gup20:
He said He created the earth and all the life upon it in six literal days.

Are you God's prophet? The word literal is not in Genesis. You added that.

Originally posted by Gup20:
Is choosing to believe God when He speaks equivicable to limiting God?

Not at all. That is why I believe what He spoke.

Originally posted by Gup20:
For those who believe God "could do anything", perhaps that begs the question - "how about lying - can God lie?" If you believe God cannot lie, aren't you limiting God to "what He said He did"?

Yes. I believe God did what he said he did. The question is what did he say he did?

 

[Gup20]

The word literal is not in Genesis. You added that.

The word literal itself is an addition, but the idea of the day being a literal day is not.

For example, did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho for 7million years or 7 literal days? Clearly, the idea of a literal day (one rotation of the earth on it's axis) is supported by scripture. There are so many factors to this to make it's meaning in Genesis abundantly clear. For example, it says "the evening and the morning were the first day". This implies a rotation of the earth on it's axis. Moreover if you use the practice of Biblical Hermeneutics (letting the Bible explain/define the Bible) you can see that - outside of Genesis 1 - the word for day (yom) is used over 400 times in conjuction with a number. Every time it is used in with a number, it means a literal day (earth rotational aka 24 hours) - for example Joshua marching for 7 days around Jericho. Also, whenever yom is used in conjunction with the word evening outside of Genesis 1, it always means an ordinary day. Also, whenever yom is used in conjunction with the word morning outside of Genesis 1, it always means a literal day.

At the end of every day of creation we have "and the evening and the morning were the [number] day".

This puts the definition of the word day used in Genesis 1 - without any question - as meaning a literal, ordinary, 24 hour, one rotation on the earth's axis day.

I believe God did what he said he did. The question is what did he say he did?

He said He created the earth and all life upon it in six days. He said man was created in the image of God from the dust... not in the image of creation from another creature. He said that death was a result of sin, not that death came before sin as evolution and theistic evolution propose.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The Bible says that all flesh does not have a common ancestor -

1Cr 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

These verses talk directly of offspring and seed (and therefore ancestory). It says that all flesh is not the same flesh - birds, fish, beasts, and men are different creations from one another.

Jesus himself that God made man and woman "from the beginning". If the earth has been around here for 13.7 billion years, and man has only been here for ~ 50,000 of those years, we are more of an insignificant blip at the end, than 'here from the beginning'.

Mar 10:6 (Jesus spaking)But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Gup20:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The word literal is not in Genesis. You added that.

The word literal itself is an addition, but the idea of the day being a literal day is not.

For example, did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho for 7million years or 7 literal days? Clearly, the idea of a literal day (one rotation of the earth on it's axis) is supported by scripture. There are so many factors to this to make it's meaning in Genesis abundantly clear. For example, it says "the evening and the morning were the first day". This implies a rotation of the earth on it's axis.</font>[/QUOTE]Implications are things we interpret.

Since the sun and the moon were created on day 4, the implication that evening and morning have something to do with the rotation of the earth on its axis on days 1,2 and 3 is probably a faulty one.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Gup20:
He said man was created in the image of God from the dust... not in the image of creation from another creature.

If being created in the image of God has something to do with our physical biological bodies, what is God's physical biological body like?

Originally posted by Gup20:
He said that death was a result of sin, not that death came before sin as evolution and theistic evolution propose.

NASB - Genesis 2:17

"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

God did not lie. The day Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they died.

NASB - Genesis 5:5

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

What kind of death did sin bring?

 

[Gup20]

Since the sun and the moon were created on day 4, the implication that evening and morning have something to do with the rotation of the earth on its axis on days 1,2 and 3 is probably a faulty one.

Dictionary.com describes 'morning' as "The first or early part of the day". Genesis tells us that God created light, then separated that light from darkness. He called the light day and the darkness night. So evening and morning are the transition times between day and night. There was the earth, there was light, and there was darkness. We can see then that evening and morning were transitions from darkness to light, or from night to day from the earth's perspective. On day 4 the Bible does not say that the creation of the sun created day and night, but that it was set to 'rule' the day and the moon to 'rule' the night. This shows that day and night were already in existence (as described earlier in Genesis 1) - and transitions between them were taking place in the abscence of the sun.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So we can see that there was DAY and NIGHT on the first day of creation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />NASB Genesis 2:17
"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

God did not lie. The day Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they died.</font>[/QUOTE]Notice that the word day is not accompanied by any of the modifiers that made the days of Genesis 1 literal - a number, or the words evening and morning. So a possible meaning of the word "day" here is 'a period of time'.

However, if you look further you will notice something else:

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now God uses the term Nephesh Chayyah in the Hebrew when explaining the life that is in man and animals. This translates "soulish life". Plants are never referred to in scripture as having nephesh chayyah life (which is why Cain's sacrifice was not accepted by God). Here we see the first sacrifice of nephesh chayyah life on earth - or the first nephesh chayyah death - as an atonement for Adam's sin. The death justice demanded of Adam was wroght upon an animal to cover Adam and Eve's sinfulness. Indeed, in that very day, death entered the world as Romans 5:12 describes.

What kind of death did sin bring?

It brought total death. There aren't any parts of creation not effected by the death. However, specifically we see the death of nephesh chayyah creations.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

What Adam did effected the whole universe. Specifically, one of the effects it had was to introduce death to the life that God had created (nephesh chayyah).

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

We see that the purpose of Jesus is to undo the damage that was done by Adam.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

[just-want-peace]

Gup20, Hate to tell you m' friend, but you are whistleing in the wind!

Those that choose to believe in evolution, will spiritualize, allegorize, de-literalize, and parableize any scripture to back up their beliefs; irrespective of what God says!

It still boils down to: "Who do you believe, God or man?", and since they are different, you can't choose both!

It's obvious which they have chosen!

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now God uses the term Nephesh Chayyah in the Hebrew when explaining the life that is in man and animals. This translates "soulish life". Plants are never referred to in scripture as having nephesh chayyah life (which is why Cain's sacrifice was not accepted by God). Here we see the first sacrifice of nephesh chayyah life on earth - or the first nephesh chayyah death - as an atonement for Adam's sin. The death justice demanded of Adam was wroght upon an animal to cover Adam and Eve's sinfulness. Indeed, in that very day, death entered the world as Romans 5:12 describes.

This is what passes for a literal interpretation in YEC circles? God's statement to Adam that "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" was fulfilled by God killing an animal to clothe Adam and Eve. Never mind that the death of the animal isn't even specifically mentioned. Never mind that God never says the animal will take the punishment Adam was due to receive. Never mind that Genesis 3 seems to be very clear that Adam and Eve were punished directly for what they did.

You even tie this to Romans 5:12 ("Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned") by saying that this verse describes an animal dying in Adam's place!

I certainly hope this is not what most people mean by reading the Bible literally.

 

[UTEOTW]

Mercury

You might as well be whistling Dixie. You continue to expose how much twisting of the plain reading they have to do to support their position. (I get in on that game every once in a while myself.) And yet they can apparently accuse us of the same thing with a straight face.

That is one reason I think YE is such a danger. Good Christian people get so used to twisting facts, whether it be Scripture or science, that they fail to even notice what they are doing.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
It still boils down to: "Who do you believe, God or man?", and since they are different, you can't choose both!

It's obvious which they have chosen!

Yes it is obvious I have chosen to believe God in both His biblical and natural revelation.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Gup20, Hate to tell you m' friend, but you are whistleing in the wind!

Those that choose to believe in evolution, will spiritualize, allegorize, de-literalize, and parableize any scripture to back up their beliefs; irrespective of what God says!

It still boils down to: "Who do you believe, God or man?", and since they are different, you can't choose both!

It's obvious which they have chosen! [/QB]

True enough. Instead of the more reliable and well accepted practice of "exegesis" they simply "eisegete" scripture to meet the usage of their atheist evolutionist peers in untiring efforts to serve evolutionism's "NEED" for a non-God solution at any cost to scripture!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This quote is from Frank Zindler, an atheist. (Frank Zindler, American atheist, in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.)

Excellent point!

What of those who try to marry Satan's view of Origins with God's clear statements in scripture - in the form of "progressive creationism"??

Any takers for that one?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Travelsong]

God gave man the ability to choose obedience or disobedience. Man chose disobedience and his will became corrupted and passed on through all succeeding generations.

Wow that was tough.


Of course you have to create strawmen to distract attention away from the actual science because your false teaching is completely bankrupt. You've got nothing. Every single one of you YEC's comes in here with guns blazing, always attacking the faith of your bretheren as though it can't possibly be aligned with Scripture, yet you all fail to address the science. Every last one of you. Over and over and over and over again. The cycle never ends.

Pathetic.

Rather than abandoning the threads that address the evidence for an old earth and evolution, why don't one of you, just one single solitary one of you muster up the courage to admit you can't deal with the overwhelming evidence?

Again, because you're a cult unto yourselves. It's a pack of lies you've sold your reasoning for. Why don't you clowns just give up and go do God's work by breaking up a few more churches?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Of course you have to create strawmen to distract attention away from the actual science because your false teaching is completely bankrupt. You've got nothing. Every single one of you YEC's comes in here with guns blazing, always attacking the faith of your bretheren as though it can't possibly be aligned with Scripture, yet you all fail to address the science.

Marvin L. Lubenow, writing in the 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," claims that any theory of evolution which purports that all, some or any human beings evolved from primitive life forms in Africa is a scientific form of racism, even if believed in religiously.

 

[UTEOTW]

And such a statement has absolutely no bearing on whether the science is true or not.

Those who are reduced to attempting fallacies of distraction, such as you are attempting here, do so because they have no valid argument on the science.

You cannot argue the facts so instead you attempt to poison the well. It is also called the genetic fallacy.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"And such a statement has absolutely no bearing on whether the science is true or not."

However, Lubenow states that even if "evolution could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt ... we would then be obliged to accept it, racism and all. We would have no option but to accept it; sadly for those whom the scientific community could show to be genetically inferior; gladly for those whom the scientific community could show to be genetically superior."

"Those who are reduced to attempting fallacies of distraction, such as you are attempting here, do so because they have no valid argument on the science."

What's invalid about arguing against scientific racism, especially if it's being surreptitiously practised and taught in U.S. public schools?

"You cannot argue the facts so instead you attempt to poison the well. It is also called the genetic fallacy."

It's not a fallacy to in fact discover the well (gene pool?) has already been theoretically poisoned.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
However, Lubenow states that even if "evolution could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt ... we would then be obliged to accept it, racism and all. We would have no option but to accept it; sadly for those whom the scientific community could show to be genetically inferior; gladly for those whom the scientific community could show to be genetically superior."

Why do you (and Lubenow) believe that our genes determine our worth? One doesn't need to deal with evolution for this to be a problem. Do you think that those born with genetic defects are inferior to other people? Or, do you deny that genetic defects exist?

I believe that all human beings are made in the image of God, and our genes do not determine our worth!

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Mercury:
"Why do you (and Lubenow) believe that our genes determine our worth?"

We don't.

"Do you think that those born with genetic defects are inferior to other people? Or, do you deny that genetic defects exist?"

I don't know what "genetic defects" are. Do you?

"I believe that all human beings are made in the image of God, and our genes do not determine our worth!"

So do Lubenow and I.