Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Thinkingstuff]

Evolution is a religion all to it self. It's a man centerd religion where man is worshipped and does not have any established facts.

The Bible on the other hand has proved it self many times over.

Evolution is man believing a lie in spite of the truth.
MB

Wow, how many times have the proponents of evolution heard that one? Just because something is said again and again doesn't make it necissarily true.

What about the archeological finds surrounding Jericho?

Or about the natural record indicating an older world than mentioned in the bible?

What about the bible not really mentioning dinosaurs except is some strange referrance in Job about a creature with a big tail or Leviathan? Neither of these actually indicate the creatures yet they are supported by archeological finds.

What about the lack of support showing a world wide flood but a regional flood in the Mesotopian basin?

And where did Darwin or any other proponent say evolution is a religion?

Do they have weekly services? Do they have a standard of rules by which to had adherants follow?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is contrary to evolution as that "theory" doesn't allow for man to have been created "in the beginning". I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on understanding that next time I will be more explicit.

My point is that evolution doesn't make a statement about God just processes. Most people who adhere to God used evolution will say God used the process of evolution to create man. So it still applies God made man by what process? Dirt? Or Evolution?

 

[annsni]

How do you hypothesise that evolution is based on death? Evolution does not indicate weather or not there is a God. Just a process of events. Basically simple life forms to create better chances of survival adapted into more complicated life forms which becomes the plethora of things we see in today's world. It is not a statement about God or that it whether it was created. It indicates a process to explain life on planet earth. Now if you want to argue creation then maybe the Big Bang vs. Non big bang and even there there are scientist who believe an alien intelligence (God) caused that to happen.

Evolution is based on death because those things that "evolved" superceeded those things that did not - those things that died. If something had a change that was not beneficial, it died off. Those things that WERE beneficial DID move on to continue "evolving". So, while the Bible says that death entered creation due to sin, evolution says that death was always a part of life. I do not see that backed up in Scripture.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

My point is that evolution doesn't make a statement about God just processes. Most people who adhere to God used evolution will say God used the process of evolution to create man. So it still applies God made man by what process? Dirt? Or Evolution?

What does the Scriptures say? The Scriptures affirm that God created man from the dust of the ground. And Eve He created from the rib of Adam so that she is bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. To take away from this doctrine takes away from the doctrine of Christ and the church outlined in Ephesians.

After Adam's creation he walked, spoke, ate food, et. He also was soon married to Eve after her creation. These were full grown people, probably appearing to be in their 20's - 30's, yet were only a few months/minutes old. This is not evolution. This is supernatural, special creation.

Also, the things that are made, the dust, air, stars, et. et., are not made from things which "do appear" This is in Hebrews as I am sure your aware. It is an affirmation of ex-nihilo. This is contrary to evolutionary process.

Theistic evolution paints into the character of God the process of millions of years of death (survival of the fittest) before sin. This cannot co-exist with the revelation of Scripture.

Read about 10 dangers of theistic evolution here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp

 

[lbaker]

I think there is room, biblically, for the earth/universe being between 6,000 - 10,000 years old. I believe six days are six 24-hour days.

If Adam wasn't the first human being, and there were others, how did death spread to those men who were not decendents of Adam?

Since Jesus is the Second Adam according to Scripture, how are the other humans you speak of included in His Redemption since the Scripture only speaks of each "Adam's" respective seed?

Why say 6,000 - 10,000 and not just 6,000? Isn't it true that if you add up all the ages and geneologies the time comes out to something like 4004 BC? If you really take it all literally it looks like you would have to stick to the 4,000 BC time for Creation.

If Adam co-existed with other humans then obviously physical death was already happening. The spiritual death came to all because Adam in some way represented the entire human race. I'm not 100% on this but it is one explanation.

Since redemption doesn't depend on physical descent I would think it also ties into the idea of Adam being representative of all humans. Or, it could be that only physical descendants of Adam are the Elect. ;-)

 

[annsni]

Wow, how many times have the proponents of evolution heard that one? Just because something is said again and again doesn't make it necissarily true.

What about the archeological finds surrounding Jericho?

Or about the natural record indicating an older world than mentioned in the bible?

What about the bible not really mentioning dinosaurs except is some strange referrance in Job about a creature with a big tail or Leviathan? Neither of these actually indicate the creatures yet they are supported by archeological finds.

What about the lack of support showing a world wide flood but a regional flood in the Mesotopian basin?

And where did Darwin or any other proponent say evolution is a religion?

Do they have weekly services? Do they have a standard of rules by which to had adherants follow?

Does the Bible mention every animal ever created? Does it mention zebras? Giraffes? How about the manitee?

As for the age thing, did God create Adam as a baby? No. He and Eve were grown adults. Their bodies had "age" built into them. Why couldn't God create full sized trees with rings? Could He have built strata into the earth? My God can.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Evolution is based on death because those things that "evolved" superceeded those things that did not - those things that died. If something had a change that was not beneficial, it died off. Those things that WERE beneficial DID move on to continue "evolving". So, while the Bible says that death entered creation due to sin, evolution says that death was always a part of life. I do not see that backed up in Scripture.

Scripture is specific to Man's redemption. Why would it take on these facets?

And I could use your statements and say it is about life.

The bible is about death btw. Jesus had to die, we must die physically and to self. You will argue about a resurrection and everlasting life. So would the evolutionist in that life will continue better than before.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What does the Scriptures say? The Scriptures affirm that God created man from the dust of the ground. And Eve He created from the rib of Adam so that she is bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. To take away from this doctrine takes away from the doctrine of Christ and the church outlined in Ephesians.

After Adam's creation he walked, spoke, ate food, et. He also was soon married to Eve after her creation. These were full grown people, probably appearing to be in their 20's - 30's, yet were only a few months/minutes old. This is not evolution. This is supernatural, special creation.

Also, the things that are made, the dust, air, stars, et. et., are not made from things which "do appear" This is in Hebrews as I am sure your aware. It is an affirmation of ex-nihilo. This is contrary to evolutionary process.

Theistic evolution paints into the character of God the process of millions of years of death (survival of the fittest) before sin. This cannot co-exist with the revelation of Scripture.

Read about 10 dangers of theistic evolution here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp

Literal or figurative? Which is the discussion.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why say 6,000 - 10,000 and not just 6,000? Isn't it true that if you add up all the ages and geneologies the time comes out to something like 4004 BC? If you really take it all literally it looks like you would have to stick to the 4,000 BC time for Creation.

If Adam co-existed with other humans then obviously physical death was already happening. The spiritual death came to all because Adam in some way represented the entire human race. I'm not 100% on this but it is one explanation.

Since redemption doesn't depend on physical descent I would think it also ties into the idea of Adam being representative of all humans. Or, it could be that only physical descendants of Adam are the Elect. ;-)

The reason for a range is because the writing of geneologies sometimes skipped generations because they focus on important characters. So, I can concede this point. If the geneologies are counted without allowing for that, then we get to 6,000 years or so.

Your explaination of humans outside Adam's lineage fails. It is those who are in Christ, as the Second Adam, that are saved. Those who were in Adam, fell. So you have another race of mankind outside the human race, and no Second Adam for the "other humans" so, consequently, Christ cannot be their Redeemer. Why do you think Christ took on flesh and blood to be born a man?

Whoever these other humans are in the imagination of some need another savior to come and take on their nature and die for them.

But this only goes to show the bankruptcy of the theology of those who move away from the Scriptures.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Literal or figurative? Which is the discussion.

Same answer: What does the Scriptures say? Did Christ Jesus see Adam and Eve as figurative or real people? Real people of course.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Does the Bible mention every animal ever created? Does it mention zebras? Giraffes? How about the manitee?

As for the age thing, did God create Adam as a baby? No. He and Eve were grown adults. Their bodies had "age" built into them. Why couldn't God create full sized trees with rings? Could He have built strata into the earth? My God can.

So you're making excusses for God? God didn't get it right so we'll say he gave the "apperiance of age". :laugh:

BTW everyone. I'm not an evolutionist. I'm taking up the other side because I doubt there is anyone here who really would without really giving them a fair shake. So I'll be your bad guy to flush out some responces.

 

[annsni]

Scripture is specific to Man's redemption. Why would it take on these facets?

And I could use your statements and say it is about life.

The bible is about death btw. Jesus had to die, we must die physically and to self. You will argue about a resurrection and everlasting life. So would the evolutionist in that life will continue better than before.

The Bible is about death entering the human race and God's plan of redemption to overcome death. It's about His love for us to bring us back into a relationship with Him.

But death did not enter until Adam sinned. If Adam had evolved from other creatures, death entered before Adam and that's not Biblically supported.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The Bible is about death entering the human race and God's plan of redemption to overcome death. It's about His love for us to bring us back into a relationship with Him.

But death did not enter until Adam sinned. If Adam had evolved from other creatures, death entered before Adam and that's not Biblically supported.

And before someone speaks about trees and plant death before sin, let me add to annsni's comment that vegetation is not biblically alive, so it cannot "die" In fact, death is not spoken of vegetation in Scripture. They wither.

 

[lbaker]

Could He have built strata into the earth? My God can.

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?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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?

It's not God who is misleading. This is a faulty argument lbaker. God did create with the appearance of age. Imagine sitting at the wedding feast of cana when Jesus made water into wine. HOw long does it take wine to ferment? And really good wine at that! There is a biblical example of creation with the appearance of age.

The science your praising is built on baseless assumptions. It is built on uniformitariansim and ignorance of the flood.

lbaker, mankind was not decieved about special creation in the beginning. Adam educated the world for over 900 years. The ignorance is in man because they supress the truth in unrighteousness, not because of the truth.

RB

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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?

that is a very desent point. Why would God put fossils of creatures that never existed into the earth?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

that is a very desent point. Why would God put fossils of creatures that never existed into the earth?

Actually, its a very uninformed one, and your question is worse! Put on your thinking cap! Have you forgotten the flood?

RB

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, its a very uninformed one, and your question is worse! Put on your thinking cap! Have you forgotten the flood?

RB

There is no evidence in support of a global flood from the geological records. Next God did not specify Noah not to bring something on board. By deduction Noah would either have left dinosaurs out of the ark. carried them on by eggs or alive. If the eggs did not hatch it would seem there would be mentioned a species wide loss in the Bible but no. This is not the case.

 

[MB]

Wow, how many times have the proponents of evolution heard that one?

Many times no doubt but ask your self this how can they disregard the fact the Bible has never been proved wrong.

Just because something is said again and again doesn't make it necissarily true.

What about the archeological finds surrounding Jericho?

Yes how about them? At first scientist denied there was any such place as Jericho. They also denied that there was ever anyone named Pilot who was governer over Israel. What do you know they finally found out there was.

Or about the natural record indicating an older world than mentioned in the bible?

If the means at which they date objects were so accurate then how come the shroud of turin has so many different dates attached to it. They claim it accurate but they haven't proved it to be true. They will never prove it because in order for proof to exist there would have to be live testimony. Or actual record made by man at the time.
You see everything on earth has existed ever since the beginning in one form or another. If that is true then how can there be such a wide difference in age. Everything has a different atomic structure to assume something is a certain age by testing how much radiation or carbon 13 it has is ridiculous. They don't know how much it had to begin with. So they assume everything has the same when it is melted down. Where is the proof of that. Far to many assumptions to come away with an accurate estimate of age. This theory is made of "assumptions" and carbon 13 testing is a theory not a fact. Nor has it ever been established as fact.

What about the bible not really mentioning dinosaurs except is some strange referrance in Job about a creature with a big tail or Leviathan? Neither of these actually indicate the creatures yet they are supported by archeological finds.

No one not even the Bible says they did not exist but insteads confirms it and you tell us about it your self. The fact is they are extinct. They claim they were evolved but I haven't seen any lately. Some say they are lizards others say they are birds. They just can't make up their minds can they?
They also claim to know that man wasn't even thought of yet when they existed but the Bible tells us differently. In Texas they discoverd the foot prints of man following a dinosaur and still deny man was alive at the time.

What about the lack of support showing a world wide flood but a regional flood in the Mesotopian basin?

I guess it all depends on who you believe God or man.

And where did Darwin or any other proponent say evolution is a religion?

Do they have weekly services? Do they have a standard of rules by which to had adherants follow?

Yes to the latter. Scientist aren't at the head of there class unless they accept the theory of evolution as fact.

Darwinianism is a religion based on the fact it has never been proved to be true. It's called a theory because it is. A theory is not fact. It's followers have no choice for if they openly reject it, there work is never considerd seriously.
All religions are theories because we cannot physcially prove there is a God. Thats why we discuss theology. Science is in the same catagory. it is all theory and most of the time science proves it self wrong. The Bible has never been proved wrong.
MB

 

[lbaker]

It's not God who is misleading. This is a faulty argument lbaker. God did create with the appearance of age. Imagine sitting at the wedding feast of cana when Jesus made water into wine. HOw long does it take wine to ferment? And really good wine at that! There is a biblical example of creation with the appearance of age.

Les here: I don't claim that God is misleading us. It is people that mislead us into thinking that God has fooled us. If God was just all the time creating stuff "with the appearance of age" no one would have been impressed with Jesus creating wine that was well aged. The very fact that it was unusual and unexpected is what made it a miracle.


RB

-----------------