Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Marcia]

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

?? Why isn't there some evidence already if the earth is so old?? Have you read about what happened following Mt St Helen's?

According to popular geomorphic theory, landforms have evolved by the relentless operation of slow erosion processes. Canyons are believed to have deepened slowly and extended headward imperceptibly becoming the end product of minute changes accumulated over millions of years. William Morris Davis, whose theories have dominated geomorphology, sketched the theory that landscapes evolved slowly through the "cycle of erosion" in stages from "youthful" to "mature" to "old age." According to Davis (1902), the equilibrium profile of a slope became precisely graded to slow erosive agents more than one million years after the completion of the "youthful" stage.
The observations at Mount St. Helens and elsewhere, however, show in miniature that adjustments toward the graded equilibrium condition can occur rapidly, especially when a critical energy threshold is exceeded by erosion processes. Even the first four years of erosion at Mount St. Helens was noticeably discontinuous. Mudflow erosion on March 18, 1982, established the dendritic drainage which could be regarded as approaching a "mature" landscape on the North Fork of the Toutle River with canyons over 100 feet deep.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/11090.htm

Even before I was a Christian, I didn't believe in evolution. It was the most ridiculous thing I ever came across in school. I used to think, "they really want us to believe man came from apes?"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

?? Why isn't there some evidence already if the earth is so old?? Have you read about what happened following Mt St Helen's?


http://www.grisda.org/origins/11090.htm

Even before I was a Christian, I didn't believe in evolution. It was the most ridiculous thing I ever came across in school. I used to think, "they really want us to believe man came from apes?"

First of all according to evolution theory humans did not develop from apes but an ape like creature. Apes are cousins so to speak we came from Homo Erectus. Scientist will say that there is all sorts of evidence pointing to their view. I don't know about Mt. St. Helen so I can't speak authoritatively about it. However, there is always an exception to the rule and there are other issues such as switching magnetic poles meteorites stricking from outer space. which causes a cataclysm outside of normal process.

Well, as a school girl not believing in evolution is not evidence enough. Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clark, Isaak Asimov, Stephen Hawkin. Consider this:

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:Today we may take fossils for granted, but we continue to learn from them. Each new fossil contains additional clues that increase our understanding of life's history and help us to answer questions about their evolutionary story. Examples include:



Indication of interactions
This ammonite fossil (see right) shows punctures that some scientists have interpreted as the bite mark of a mosasaur, a type of predatory marine reptile that lived at the same time as the ammonite. Damage to the ammonite has been correlated to the shapes and capabilities of mosasaur teeth and jaws. Others have argued that the holes were created by limpets that attached to the ammonite. Researchers examine ammonite fossils, as well as mosasaur fossils and the behaviors of limpets, in order to explore these hypotheses.
Clues at the cellular level
Fossils can tell us about growth patterns in ancient animals. The picture at right is a cross-section through a sub-adult thigh bone of the duckbill dinosaur Maiasaura. The white spaces show that there were lots of blood vessels running through the bone, which indicates that it was a fast-growing bone. The black wavy horizontal line in mid-picture is a growth line, reflecting a seasonal pause in the animal's growth.
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the gray whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms. Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!
Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist.

This is from one of the leading Universities in the US. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_03

So a school girls thoughts compared to leading scientist and a leading University? That's nice. I know little girls who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thinkingstuff,

Nice display of atheist logic. Amazing. And darwinian evolution/naturalism/materialism doesn't lead to atheism?

First of all according to evolution theory humans did not develop from apes but an ape like creature. Apes are cousins so to speak we came from Homo Erectus. Scientist will say that there is all sorts of evidence pointing to their view. I don't know about Mt. St. Helen so I can't speak authoritatively about it. However, there is always an exception to the rule and there are other issues such as switching magnetic poles meteorites stricking from outer space. which causes a cataclysm outside of normal process.

Well, as a school girl not believing in evolution is not evidence enough. Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clark, Isaak Asimov, Stephen Hawkin. Consider this:

So your cousins are apes. Hope your not into marrying cousins!

How about a global flood causing a cataclysm? Gee...I think that's in the Bible!

Carl Pagan...er...sagan: Antichristian

Arthur C. Clark: and I quote, "Any path to knowledge is a path to God — or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use” Another atheist.

Stephen Hawking: And I quote, "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?" Another atheist.

Your on a role here THinkgstuff...got any more atheists and antichristians you want to put your trust in?

Psalm 1: 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

You should walk in the Law of God and not the counsel of the ungodly.

So a school girls thoughts compared to leading scientist and a leading University? That's nice. I know little girls who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too.

Nice Atheist argument? What happened to the pink bunny or any other character atheists invent to ridicule faith in God?

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Hugh Ross is not a theistic evolutionist. He is an old-earth creationist.

Reasons to Believe: FAQ: The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation
by Hugh Ross
...
It is the common life science definition for evolution that must be questioned—the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeforms, both in the present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."
...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff,

Nice display of atheist logic. Amazing. And darwinian evolution/naturalism/materialism doesn't lead to atheism?



So your cousins are apes. Hope your not into marrying cousins!

How about a global flood causing a cataclysm? Gee...I think that's in the Bible!

Carl Pagan...er...sagan: Antichristian

Arthur C. Clark: and I quote, "Any path to knowledge is a path to God — or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use” Another atheist.

Stephen Hawking: And I quote, "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?" Another atheist.

Your on a role here THinkgstuff...got any more atheists and antichristians you want to put your trust in?



You should walk in the Law of God and not the counsel of the ungodly.



Nice Atheist argument? What happened to the pink bunny or any other character atheists invent to ridicule faith in God?

Honestly RB how can I do justice to the other side if I only quote from a limited source. There aren't too many christian scientist who hold to the theistic evolution side of things. Also Just because someone is an athiest doesn't mean they don't have a good point with regards to the natural world. We are arguing process here not whether God exist or not. In which case evolution does not consider that it just considers how things procede from chaos to order. Which I might add was the belief of the early Greeks. Their gods started with the older gods of chaos which were overthrown by Zeus who created order and established the new gods and world order.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Honestly RB how can I do justice to the other side if I only quote from a limited source. There aren't too many christian scientist who hold to the theistic evolution side of things.

You should be asking yourself why.

Also Just because someone is an athiest doesn't mean they don't have a good point with regards to the natural world.

So what are you going to walk in thinkstuff? Their worldview or will you go with the warning in Psalm 1 ?

We are arguing process here not whether God exist or not. In which case evolution does not consider that it just considers how things procede from chaos to order.

I think you have greatly underestimated what darwinian, and more specifically, neo-darwinian evolution really is. In fact, I am convinced you don't see the danger in its philosophies.

Which I might add was the belief of the early Greeks. Their gods started with the older gods of chaos which were overthrown by Zeus who created order and established the new gods and world order.

Wow. I am not sure what you mean by this...but essentially it comes accross as..."hey, the pagan greeks believed this kind of stuff. Why shouldn't I!"

Please clarify!

 

[lbaker]

Here's a link to the listserv archives for the ASA. I think that stands for American Scientific Affiliation. They are a bunch of christian scientists, not the religion, but scientists who are christian. Just prowl through the archives and read a few posts if you don't think someone can believe in evolution and be a christian. There are a few cranks that post on there about numerology and such but for the most part they are all solid scientists.

http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You should be asking yourself why.




So what are you going to walk in thinkstuff? Their worldview or will you go with the warning in Psalm 1 ?



I think you have greatly underestimated what darwinian, and more specifically, neo-darwinian evolution really is. In fact, I am convinced you don't see the danger in its philosophies.



Wow. I am not sure what you mean by this...but essentially it comes accross as..."hey, the pagan greeks believed this kind of stuff. Why shouldn't I!"

Please clarify!

did you miss my point on the earlier post. I'm not an evolutionist!!!!! I'm supporting their position on this thread because I don't believe they will get a fair shake. And I like to argue. And I'm just pointing out that the scientific community that believe in the big bang and evolution are in essense doing the same thing the Greeks did.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

did you miss my point on the earlier post. I'm not an evolutionist!!!!! I'm supporting their position on this thread because I don't believe they will get a fair shake. And I like to argue. And I'm just pointing out that the scientific community that believe in the big bang and evolution are in essense doing the same thing the Greeks did.

Ok, I am totally misunderstanding you then. I will stop responding to your posts. lol

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, I am totally misunderstanding you then. I will stop responding to your posts. lol

Don't stop responding I like the argument. But don't object to my post as my personal view and that I don't know the bible. I do. I presenting the other side because honestly. Only one person on this thread beleives in theistic evolution and what. He's got valid points. He doesn't agree but that doesn't mean he's not a christian just his view of what he thinks the bible verses what you think. Comments like you don't know the bible is just a personal attack not condusive to the argument. and so I'm supporting his position rationally with out personal attacks to bring about good comments.

Before I became a believer I was a follower of Carl Sagan (eventhough I was catholic) and I watched his show COSMOS on PBS religeously. So its an area I'm familiar with and I wanted to put up a good fight for the other side. I get this stuff with my community of believers which is no more how can scientist say this or that they are fools "only the fool says in his heart there is no God" so lets go at it in this forum. I can also take the stance the bible isn't real and argue that perspective. But it doesn't mean I believe that. I'm familiar with it because I discuss this stuff at work all the time and it is a good witnessing oportunity. People are tired of pat christian answers and want reasoned discussion. Which is how apologetics began.

 

[lbaker]

Here's another christian/pro science web site:

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here's another christian/pro science web site:

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

Thanks, I'll take a gander. I really do like science.

 

[lbaker]

Great! I'd be interested to hear your impressions after you check them out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Great! I'd be interested to hear your impressions after you check them out.

It was an interesting article regarding psychology and the threat christians feel it causes them. I often tell people that I really don't mind all the theories scientist come up with to explain the natural world. Facts being what they are I believe an objective view will point to God. I don't believe there will ever be a discovery that will be the ahh moment and people determine that God lied. I'm am not challenged by science and embrace it for what it is. A method of determining how things work or are. Shakespear had it right

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[lbaker]

I kind of think that IF science is ever able to dig deep enough, there will be an aha! moment when they find God at the bottom of, or behind, everything that is.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

here is another post I put on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnA
So God worked for 6 eons, and rested during the 7th eon, then the creation could not be used to support the sabbath day of rest, unless mna owrks 6 eons and rests durting the 7th.
See, scripturally it makes no sense. Context, complete context of all of scripture.


What does the number 7 represent in scripture (wholeness or completness of God's working)? So the 6 days of creation coud be a representation of an outline rather than a scientific look at creation. The first day and night is differentiated by light and darkness. Yet we find that sun and the moon were not created yet.
Quote:
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (stars still not created yet BTW)And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day (Still no stars or heavenly bodies)And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day (ahhh stars sun and moon finally)

The 24 hour time period is necissarily dependent on the revolution of the earth which at that point was only raw material and formless. A day on Mars is 24 hours and 37 minutes and a Year is 680 days. So by necessity this time measurement based on the movement of heavenly bodies. So this measurement can not be applied to creation since by it's own account the heavenly bodies were not created. It makes for sence to say the first 3 days indicate creation on a general basis or in three periods the next 3 days indicate what was created and increation culminating with man kind since that is the object of the story and when these periods were completed God rested from all his work a completion of all activity on Gods part including rest.

 

[lbaker]

A couple of thoughts on Thinkings post:

I've read that take on it before, something like the real thrust of the story is that God created everything and not Tiamat. That makes sense.

Just noticed something - in verse 2 on the 1st day the Earth is already in place. So was it created on day -1?

Now the reason I point that out is that this is the kind of detail that doesn't matter if the point is that God did it and not some pagan deity. But, if we're trying to read it as a detailed science text, then leaving out the part where the Earth gets made is kind of a big deal.

;-)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A couple of thoughts on Thinkings post:

I've read that take on it before, something like the real thrust of the story is that God created everything and not Tiamat. That makes sense.

Just noticed something - in verse 2 on the 1st day the Earth is already in place. So was it created on day -1?

Now the reason I point that out is that this is the kind of detail that doesn't matter if the point is that God did it and not some pagan deity. But, if we're trying to read it as a detailed science text, then leaving out the part where the Earth gets made is kind of a big deal.

;-)

Some dispensationalist believe the world was created perfectly and there were dinosaurs at that time and when satan fell (war with heaven) it destroyed the earth and made it void and formless so God re-created the world. I don't hold to this view but I've heard it from these people. These are the same people who believe demons are the spirits of the anti-deluvians who died in the flood.

 

[lbaker]

Some dispensationalist believe the world was created perfectly and there were dinosaurs at that time and when satan fell (war with heaven) it destroyed the earth and made it void and formless so God re-created the world. I don't hold to this view but I've heard it from these people. These are the same people who believe demons are the spirits of the anti-deluvians who died in the flood.

Hmmm, that's kind of interesting. But, (and I know you don't believe it) that kind of sounds like God wasn't able to protect His Creation but could only clean up the mess Satan made of it. I used to think the "became" void, etc. was talking about when the big meteor hit and wiped out the dinosaurs. I guess it could be some kind of reference to that.

demons = anti-deluvians = that's a scary thought! Sounds kind of like the idea that the "evil spirits" that Jesus was always running up on and casting out are the spirits of the evil dead.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hmmm, that's kind of interesting. But, (and I know you don't believe it) that kind of sounds like God wasn't able to protect His Creation but could only clean up the mess Satan made of it. I used to think the "became" void, etc. was talking about when the big meteor hit and wiped out the dinosaurs. I guess it could be some kind of reference to that.

demons = anti-deluvians = that's a scary thought! Sounds kind of like the idea that the "evil spirits" that Jesus was always running up on and casting out are the spirits of the evil dead.

there is always speculation about the begining just like the end.