Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Marcia]

No need to sell your set. Have you read Hugh Ross on the issue.

He's an evangelical and believes the process glorifies God.

He's both an astronomer and astrophysicist. He is compelling.

Speaking of Hugh Ross...my OT professor in seminary made point-by-point refutations of Ross' theistic evolution. I'd have to find my notes as I can't recall much of it.

 

[Marcia]

So what was the purpose of loading those HUGE creatures onto the ark just to let them go extinct? I thought extinctions were a byproduct of evolution and death?

Do we really know dinosaurs existed the way we think they did? The models have been reconstructed from scattered bones. Also, I know I've read that some dinosaurs that we thought were huge were not that big.

As a paleontologist, one of the questions that I am often asked is "Why were the dinosaurs so big?" Well, the answer is that they were not all large. In fact, many dinosaurs were the size of an ostrich or smaller, but the really big dinosaurs are the ones that always stick in our minds.
Source
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/paleontology/66759

Also see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs

 

[Revmitchell]

Not according to Kathleen Kenyon.

And?

Nor is there evidence of a Global flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

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.

Do you seriously believe this? I hope I do not have to explain this to you. Surely you are smarter than this.

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:

When people have a standard for living other than scripture this is the mind set you get. You appear to have more faith in scientists to find the truth than God to keep his truth.

 

[Marcia]

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?

Right - and no one has observed evolution as it is theorized - evolution of the earth or evolution of species from another species.

 

[Marcia]

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:

Some of these were probably scribal errors in copying. I understand that Hebrew numbers can differ with just a small dot or mark. As for the year of a king's reign - the years were often counted 2 ways.

We can pretty much detect the scribal errors - none of them affect any important doctrine and certainly do not affect the account of creation in Genesis.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Those on the evolution side have a very low opinion of God, the Bible and God's integrity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

MB,

I went fishing looking for a good fight (good argument) and I caught you. Thanks. I was having a boring day. Not so much now. Again thank you. First of all let me put it this way:

If you had studied the Bible you would know that.

I have studied the bible and continue to do so. I am a christian and I don't believe in evolution. However, I doubt that the other side of the argument would get much play on this site so I offered myself up as the "bad guy" to illicit good responces and reasoned argument. Partly because I'm mischievous and partly because it sharpens my skills. So here we go:

They found out the walls didn't fall because of faith. 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

You made the argument in bold. I didn't so you set the board and want me to play by it when the truth of the matter was that I said Jericho did not fall in the way the bible describes Ie the walls didn't fall straight down. I mentioned my source in a previous post acheologist Kenyon. It's her study and she did a good job explaining it.

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

well here is this information

Radiocarbon dating is a reasonably reliable method for dating objects between 300 and 30,000 years old. However it is not 100% accurate, and there are many factors limiting its accuracy.

Samples can be contaminated by calcium carbonate (limestone) from groundwater, and humic acids from organic matter in soil. These must be removed by pre-treatment techniques before a sample is dated. Sometimes the level of 14C in a sample when it died, is not the same as the equilibrium level in the atmosphere. For example, marine samples show lower 14C levels, as some has decayed by the time it dissolves in the sea.

Also the level of 14C in the biosphere is not constant but has changed in the past, so it is necessary to calibrate radiocarbon dates to produce accurate results. This is done by comparing the dendrochronology (tree ring) and radiocarbon dates of wood samples from the bristlecone pine tree, which can live for more than 4000 years. As there is no carbon exchange between the rings, the 14C content of the centre of a tree will be less than the younger wood on the outside. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A637418

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

Yeah and I saw a special about UFOs

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

BTW so are you or do you have hard evidence of the trinity?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Some of these were probably scribal errors in copying. I understand that Hebrew numbers can differ with just a small dot or mark. As for the year of a king's reign - the years were often counted 2 ways.

We can pretty much detect the scribal errors - none of them affect any important doctrine and certainly do not affect the account of creation in Genesis.

So Chronicles and Kings can have scribal errors but not genesis? And it's a much older document. How many times has that been copied?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Right - and no one has observed evolution as it is theorized - evolution of the earth or evolution of species from another species.

evolution doesn't happen overnight so give it a few hundred thousand more years.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Far out you dorks. There are fools on both sides

I see the evolutionists doubting God and making a mockery of Him and His power. But then the creationists come along and say 'Scribal Error! God's word is not perfect. He can create the entire universe in six days, but He can't preserve some words'

Why don't you all just believe the Bible, as it is written.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Far out you dorks. There are fools on both sides

I see the evolutionists doubting God and making a mockery of Him and His power. But then the creationists come along and say 'Scribal Error! God's word is not perfect. He can create the entire universe in six days, but He can't preserve some words'

Why don't you all just believe the Bible, as it is written.

Not if you try to say that the KJB 1611 is the only version without scribal errors and it comes from an "immaculate" line of copied scriptures from Erasimus.

 

[Lukasaurus]

No of course not. I would never say such a thing. Don't you know that every Bible is good EXCEPT the KJB?

And it was Stephanus, not Erasmus.

 

[Deacon]

Far out you dorks. There are fools on both sides

I see the evolutionists doubting God and making a mockery of Him and His power. But then the creationists come along and say 'Scribal Error! God's word is not perfect. He can create the entire universe in six days, but He can't preserve some words'

Why don't you all just believe the Bible, as it is written.

I think we can do without the name calling Lukasaurus. You are a child of the King.

There are strong believers that hold different views of this topic.

Let me throw out a definition

Theistic evolution (van Till):
God has created a universe which depends continually upon God and which has been endowed with the ability to accomplish what God wants it to accomplish without any "corrections" or "interventions."
Of course God intervened in his creation as he revealed himself inorder to bring about salvation, this is God's story, the Bible.

While I'm not fond of his model, it doesn't dishonor or disenfranchise God from his creation.
And it isn't unbiblical.

Neo-evolution (drawing from Darwinian evolution) as defined well in the opening post, is purposeless and undirected and therefore by definition is anti-theistic and not compatable with Christianity.

FYI, almost all theistic creation models incorporate some form of evolutionary change to one degree or another.

Rob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No of course not. I would never say such a thing. Don't you know that every Bible is good EXCEPT the KJB?

And it was Stephanus, not Erasmus.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles

Enough said. Off topic.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Well, the argument was on evolution, not adaptation, which is observable.

Dogs breed dogs. Big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, white dogs and adorable little brown dogs with big smiles and curly little tales.

But evolution involves the slow gradual change of one species to another. Doesn't happen, never has, never will.

Yes, my name calling was out of line, but I didn't mean it to sound aggressive. Dork is such an affectionate term :laugh:

But fools is not, so I apologise.

I don't think there are strong believers on both sides. A strong believer believes what God says, and does not privately interpret. Anyone that believes in theistic evolution is weak in the faith, not strong.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Enough said. Off topic.

Yeah, it is, but you should note I didn't mention it in the first place. And who cares what the translators say.

Do you think Paul would have the pride to say "I am writing the word of God right now and it is infallible". You can't find a place where Paul claims his own writing is the word of God. 1 Tim 3:16 doesn't count. He isn't referring to his own letter, but the scriptures that were available to them, the Old Testament, and probably some of the gospels. IF the translators had said in their foreword "This translation is infallible" would you believe them? Of course not. You'd just say they were misguided. So it really matters not what the translators say or do.

So anyway, I said people should believe the Bible, YOU brought up the KJB.

So who is divisive? I didn't even say anything about it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yeah, it is, but you should note I didn't mention it in the first place. And who cares what the translators say.

Do you think Paul would have the pride to say "I am writing the word of God right now and it is infallible". You can't find a place where Paul claims his own writing is the word of God. 1 Tim 3:16 doesn't count. He isn't referring to his own letter, but the scriptures that were available to them, the Old Testament, and probably some of the gospels. IF the translators had said in their foreword "This translation is infallible" would you believe them? Of course not. You'd just say they were misguided. So it really matters not what the translators say or do.

So anyway, I said people should believe the Bible, YOU brought up the KJB.

So who is divisive? I didn't even say anything about it.

You're right I was being divisive but to show a point. Evolutionist believe themselves to be scientific by nature and like to believe they deal with hard evidence. They will not accept the your interpretation of the bible off your word and if they know anything about how the bible is put together they will question your stance on the bible which they will say is inaccurate and based on unscientific assumptions and then prove it to you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Originally Posted by Lukasaurus
Far out you dorks. There are fools on both sides

Just be careful with this. Your going to lose respect and possibly get warned for making a personal attack. Just try to attack the doctrine and not the person, and you will be fine.

RB

 

[Lukasaurus]

Yes, I apologised for it earlier. Thank you

 

[Marcia]

So Chronicles and Kings can have scribal errors but not genesis? And it's a much older document. How many times has that been copied?

We have evidence of the scribal errors in the differing manuscripts for chronicles and kings but not in genesis, at least not gen. 1 as far as I know.

There is no ms that says God created in 16 days or 160 years or 1600 years vs 6 days.