Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Thinkingstuff]

Spell Check is your friend.


"In the beginning" is a reference to the creation of all things to include man and woman and marriage. Jesus used the fact that from the creation of the world it was so.

Jesus used the principle of creation to make his point. Yes it is. But I'm not savvy enough to use it on the board posts.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Look at this

Dead creature caught by Japanese fishermen near New Zealand
in 1977. A qualified marine biologist on board the vessel recorded
all the pertinent data possible. (Taiyo Fishery Company, Japan).

 

[lbaker]

Why do any species go instinct? There are still lizards in existence, and since I do not know every creature on the planet, I cannot infallible conclude all dinosaurs are extinct. If t-rex's were as terrible as we think, I would think humans killed them off long ago. The term dinosaur is new to our language. For a terrible lizard it used to be dragon.

What do you do when fresh dino bones are found? With blood cells that haven't decayed?

I think its possible some dino species still exist.

RB

I doubt we could have killed off the t-rex's. So why aren't there any statues or pictures or writings about these things if they were still around a few thousand years ago? We should surely be finding lots of well preserved carcasses in relatively shallow ground too, I would think.

Yeah, that deal where they found the well preserved carcass is kind of a mystery.

I am doubtful they are still around, I've seen too many supposed sightings disproved. But, I still hope there are a few around somewhere. That would be just too cool!

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus used the principle of creation to make his point. Yes it is. But I'm not savvy enough to use it on the board posts.

I don't know what this means.

 

[lbaker]

Look at this

Dead creature caught by Japanese fishermen near New Zealand
in 1977. A qualified marine biologist on board the vessel recorded
all the pertinent data possible. (Taiyo Fishery Company, Japan).

Yeah, I remember that. I got all excited about it until it got debunked. Turns out it is probably a partially decayed basking shark.

http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't know what this means.

If the genesis creation account was a figurative outline that emphasised in the first 3 days you have a general statement about creation with the last three days as to what was created then the principle is that God created and had an intended order rather than an exact 6 day as specified in genesis. So the principle is that God created with an order in mind as indicated by the outlined creation story. so Jesus was discussing the same principle with regards to marriage.

the last part is the spell check referrence thing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I doubt we could have killed off the t-rex's. So why aren't there any statues or pictures or writings about these things if they were still around a few thousand years ago? We should surely be finding lots of well preserved carcasses in relatively shallow ground too, I would think.

Yeah, that deal where they found the well preserved carcass is kind of a mystery.

I am doubtful they are still around, I've seen too many supposed sightings disproved. But, I still hope there are a few around somewhere. That would be just too cool!

Look at this http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

And these

Above: Dennis Fields, a former missionary to Far North Queensland’s Kuku Yalanji tribespeople, told the Answers in Genesis ministry in Australia some years ago of a story the elders of the tribe told him, of a creature called Yarru (or Yarrba). The tribe inhabits the rainforest regions, where there are a number of waterholes in which, in earlier days, Yarru was said to live. There is a story of how the Yarru devoured a young maiden. The missionary asked one of the tribe’s artists to paint the story for him. The tribal artist, with very little formal education, had no knowledge of what so-called prehistoric animals looked like, and was drawing only from the descriptions handed down in the ancient stories.

The painting (later donated to Answers in Genesis, and shown at the right) shows a creature with a remarkable resemblance to the extinct plesiosaurus.

Above: The entry in A Chinese-English Dictionary (published in China in 1979) for dragon gives the meanings as:

dragon

imperial (as in imperial robe)

a huge extinct reptile: dinosaur

a surname.


The traditional (complex) way of writing 'dragon'. Chinese people see the right part as reflecting the spiny back and tail of the dragon.
Clearly, the dictionary recognizes that dragons were real animals and the language also connects dinosaurs to them. Indeed, the characters rendering 'dinosaur' in a paleontology context, ('konglong'), literally mean 'fearsome dragon'—remember that the English word 'dinosaur' was not invented until 1841.

Also, there are many sayings in Chinese that connect dragons with still-living animals, such as tigers. For example:

'like a coiling dragon and crouching tiger'—meaning a forbidding strategic point. A variation on this saying inspired the title of the recent award-winning Chinese movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, meaning a benign looking place with powerful hidden forces.

'dragon's pool and tiger's den' —meaning a dangerous place.

'dragons rising and tigers leaping'—meaning a scene of bustling activity.

Furthermore, of the twelve symbols used in the Chinese lunar calendar cycle, eleven are real animals (pig, rat, rabbit, tiger, etc.), suggesting that the remaining one, the dragon, is equally real.

The above evidence is consistent with identifying dinosaurs with the dragons of Chinese history as real animals that have lived not too long ago. This contradicts the whole idea of an 'age of dinosaurs' millions of years before people existed, and further supports the Biblical account of the real history of the world.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yeah, I remember that. I got all excited about it until it got debunked. Turns out it is probably a partially decayed basking shark.

http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm

Gee...a bunch of atheist evolutionists out to debunk the possibility that a decaying dino has been found? Say it ain't so! I have seen the "debunking" replies as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look at this http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

And these

Above: Dennis Fields, a former missionary to Far North Queensland’s Kuku Yalanji tribespeople, told the Answers in Genesis ministry in Australia some years ago of a story the elders of the tribe told him, of a creature called Yarru (or Yarrba). The tribe inhabits the rainforest regions, where there are a number of waterholes in which, in earlier days, Yarru was said to live. There is a story of how the Yarru devoured a young maiden. The missionary asked one of the tribe’s artists to paint the story for him. The tribal artist, with very little formal education, had no knowledge of what so-called prehistoric animals looked like, and was drawing only from the descriptions handed down in the ancient stories.

The painting (later donated to Answers in Genesis, and shown at the right) shows a creature with a remarkable resemblance to the extinct plesiosaurus.

Above: The entry in A Chinese-English Dictionary (published in China in 1979) for dragon gives the meanings as:

dragon

imperial (as in imperial robe)

a huge extinct reptile: dinosaur

a surname.


The traditional (complex) way of writing 'dragon'. Chinese people see the right part as reflecting the spiny back and tail of the dragon.
Clearly, the dictionary recognizes that dragons were real animals and the language also connects dinosaurs to them. Indeed, the characters rendering 'dinosaur' in a paleontology context, ('konglong'), literally mean 'fearsome dragon'—remember that the English word 'dinosaur' was not invented until 1841.

Also, there are many sayings in Chinese that connect dragons with still-living animals, such as tigers. For example:

'like a coiling dragon and crouching tiger'—meaning a forbidding strategic point. A variation on this saying inspired the title of the recent award-winning Chinese movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, meaning a benign looking place with powerful hidden forces.

'dragon's pool and tiger's den' —meaning a dangerous place.

'dragons rising and tigers leaping'—meaning a scene of bustling activity.

Furthermore, of the twelve symbols used in the Chinese lunar calendar cycle, eleven are real animals (pig, rat, rabbit, tiger, etc.), suggesting that the remaining one, the dragon, is equally real.

The above evidence is consistent with identifying dinosaurs with the dragons of Chinese history as real animals that have lived not too long ago. This contradicts the whole idea of an 'age of dinosaurs' millions of years before people existed, and further supports the Biblical account of the real history of the world.

The first one looks like a hoax

The dragon thing well on the face of it I see what you mean but there are large lizards like the kimono dragon. So I'm not so certain that it prove the point.

 

[lbaker]

I checked the Genesis Park website. There are some interesting things out there but I don't think the guy is any kind of a legitimate scientist.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I checked the Genesis Park website. There are some interesting things out there but I don't think the guy is any kind of a legitimate scientist.

Well, at least I know where your authority lies, which is the crux of the issue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, at least I know where your authority lies, which is the crux of the issue.

What kind of comment is that. Science is based on observable phenomina and comes to conclusions based on a systematic process. How can that be a bad authority?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What kind of comment is that. Science is based on observable phenomina and comes to conclusions based on a systematic process. How can that be a bad authority?

We call me silly and slap me with an ugly stick...scientists have actually observed the past!!!!!!! Where did they get that time machine??????????

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

What kind of comment is that. Science is based on observable phenomina and comes to conclusions based on a systematic process. How can that be a bad authority?

Scientists present theory and assumptions as fact. Science in no way keeps them honest. Science can be skewed by bias just as anything else can.

 

[lbaker]

Well, at least I know where your authority lies, which is the crux of the issue.

Well that depends on what the subject is. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science text and when we start trying to use it as one we end up with egg on our face, just like the church did with Galileo and Giordano Bruno. That kind of thing really does a lot for our credibility, by the way.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well that depends on what the subject is. The Bible doesn't claim to be a science text and when we start trying to use it as one we end up with egg on our face, just like the church did with Galileo and Giordano Bruno. That kind of thing really does a lot for our credibility, by the way.

Really this is not any credible reasoning. The Bible has been found to be credible in both science and by archeology.

 

[Marcia]

This ties into one of my strongest objections to the concept of a young Earth creation.

Why would God create a universe or an earth made to look billions of years older than it actually is? No reason that I can think of.

The same science that testifies to the magnificent design and details and physical laws that God built into the universe so that it would work in just a certain way also tell me that it is billions of years old.

If God can't be trusted not to mislead us in His physical creation then how can we trust Him at all?

(Well, this thread started today and is already up to quite a few pages! I read through page 6 so far.)

For one thing, we don't know exactly how old the universe is. They've discovered after the Mt St Helen's volcano, that some things that look old actually can occur in a matter of months.

God did create Adam and Eve as adults, so why not create the earth with a certain age on it (but not millions).

Another point - look at that geneology in Luke 3:

37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

These people are all real individuals; Adam is mentioned here as the first man, "the son of God" since he did not have an earthly father.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Really this is not any credible reasoning. The Bible has been found to be credible in both science and by archeology.

Not according to Kathleen Kenyon. Nor is there evidence of a Global flood. The bible has contradicted itself on these issues.


2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

2SA 24:24 David paid 50 shekels of silver for the purchase of a property.
1CH 21:22-25 He paid 600 shekels of gold.

1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).

1KI 5:16 Solomon had 3,300 supervisors.
2CH 2:2 He had 3,600 supervisors.

1KI 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high.
2CH 3:15-17 They were 35 cubits high.

1KI 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
2CH 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign.

So it seems there are some serious questions to quantitative accuracy of the bible is questionable. So it seems that maybe scientific method with regards to the age of the earth may have a foot up since the bible seems to have internal inaccuracies with regards to quantitiative data. :wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

The issue as I see it is that evolution is a science involving theory. Part of the science of evolution (according to my psychology professor) is “descriptive study” in which variables are systematically measured, problem is, one cannot measure what one cannot see, (this leave out spirituality) and another important part is in the prescribed observational techniques one must avoid “observer bias” and “experimenter expectancy effect” so we are told we must be willing to let go of everything we believe for this science to be effective. (yeah, right!) So what I find anomalous is that the science of evolution is hypocritically dependent on a preconceived belief that this theory is true and then all the descriptive studies become a force to fit science which is FULL of holes. Yet, we (I) was told “we don’t discuss religion in this class.” And this because of bringing up what was IN my psychology book about a pioneering psychologist “William James” who argued functionalism over structuralism and thought religion should be examined as part of that function. Oh well, I have to learn this evolution “theory” to succeed in this class, but will separate the two (evolution and creation) in my mind as much as possible, which is a bit of a struggle for me. Again, the psychological science of evolution should take their own theory and be willing to let go of “anything” they believe to be true.

While I’m at it let me tell you guys about my philosophy professor (Intro to logic) teaching (after a couple of digs about the existence of God) that “we can not know anything as 100% true, and that no physics philosopher would EVER tell you that this desk is 100% truly or actually here.” My question to him was “Then you are saying that all physics philosophers are Agnostic?” “What do you mean?” He says. “One must believe with all his heart that God is true; I am certain that not all physics professors are Agnostics.” I said. (He shrugs his shoulders and changes the subject) Then he asks, “Can you tell me that this desk is absolutely 100% here?” I reply, “Is that a logical question?” The class erupts in laughter and then he says, “This is going to be a fun class!” Mind you, this all happened the first day. Last week (week 3) we spent the whole class in lively debate over whether the words “under God” should be have been used in the Pledge of Allegiance, in which it was basically me and two others who joined in against the professor and most the rest of the class. Whoas me, (He has admitted to being Agnostic and appears to have an agenda) I would be worried about my grade, except he did give me an “A” on my first essay about it regardless of disagreeing with his opinion.

Well, I go home and discuss these matters with my children who will be starting college soon, and my daughter tells me about some of her more difficult experiences. I wish I had more time to start a tread and discuss more of this as there is so much more to add. But for now I thank God for the experiences which will help me to better prepare my children for what is/and has been being shoved down their throats concerning the theories of science. While I’m at it, pray for us who are on a daily bases facing these issues over scientific theories head on, if you would.

 

[MB]

The dig around Jericho does not show that the walls came down in the matter the bible describes.

They found out the walls didn't fall because of faith.:laugh: Prove it!
This is what the Bible says.
Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
By faith they fell. it doesn't matter how they fell because faith is the reason they fell.
Now since you stuck you neck out there and made this claim you are responsible to prove it didn't happen because of faith.

Carbon dating has its down side but it has been proven more than not.

Name one instant where they estimated something to be thousands of years old and they proved it.

I heard the foot print thing before but it is an assumption that it happened at the same time. and there is the point that it maybe a urban myth.

Actually you're wrong here it was shown on the science channel last year and they were both in the same slab of stone in a dry river bed. It isn't a myth. The slab of stone was formed that way because of pressure when the prints were made it was mud. They were covered by volcanic ash which preserved them until the mud dried and became stone

Blind belief is not a good thing. Just ask people in Wako.

This is exactly what you your self are standing by. The blind faith in scientist. Just ordinary men with an educated guess.

Evolution is a theory based on observation. Not on ancient assumptions like the bible.

Well lets see. "Obsversation" you say, just what is it they have actually observed. Theory? They have never observed evolution. They say this is because it takes millions of years. How many do you know who are old enough to have observed evolution. What has man seen evolve. The work of his own hands? nope! because that is creation. Is it observation to try to interpret rock and bone? nope. That's interpretation not observation.
No one has observed a single thing pertaining to evolution. In fact they admit it and then turn around and say that they know because of observation. What observation? Double speak is all it is.

The Bible as I said before has proved it self many times to be genuine and it is actual record recorded by many down through the years it is not speculation as is evolution. If you had studied the Bible you would know that.
I feel sorry for those at Waco but if they would not have taken the word of Koresh and studied there Bible they would all still be with us today. The Bible warns us of evil men like David Koresh. All of them were already deceived even before Koresh came into the picture. SDA is a cult. The branch dividians were a division of the cult SDA. (Seventh day adventist)
MB