Could God Have Used Evolution?

[MB]

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:


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:

I've read your post on other threads. I was only sharpening my sword against your's and knew it was only play from the beginning.

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.

I have no idea which version claims the walls fell straight down this is what Joshua wrote according to the KJV;
Jos 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

well here is this information





Yeah and I saw a special about UFOs



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

I do of one trinity, my own.
Me, Myself, and I. Yet I'm still just one man. Although each reference has it's own purpose.
MB

 

[Marcia]

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.

Yeah, you know, I almost typed "apelike creatures." Same difference to me. Adam and Eve were the first people according to the narrative of Genesis, and were clearly not apelike creatures. I think the point that man was made in the image of God is very significant here - animals are not made in the image of God. Man and animals are separate and always have been.

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

Funny! :laugh: :laugh:

I wasn't offering that as proof against evolution - just giving a personal view from my past. And I had gone past believing the tooth fairy and Santa Claus when I was taught about evolution.

 

[Marcia]

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

Thanks for the correction. I think he may be called a "progressive creationist."

Dr. Ross does not believe the Garden of Eden was free of death, suffering or degeneration—a world created in perfection. He believes that death and degeneration existed in the beginning and have continued for billions of years. He also teaches that neither the fall to sin nor the Flood resulted in significant physical changes in Nature. [Creation and Time, pp. 55, 65.]

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c014.html

Since one of the reasons progressive creationists accept a 4.5 billion year old earth is their uncritical acceptance of an essentially evolutionary interpretation of the geological column, they must inevitably deny the global nature of the Noachian Deluge so clearly taught in the Bible. This inevitably requires that the geological column show evidence of God's "progressive creation" rather than evidence of God's angry judgment of death and destruction in a world wide flood. Then, since fossils in the geological column obviously include the dead remains of animals and men, the progressive creationist inevitably must argue that physical death did not come into the world by sin, as the Bible clearly teaches, but rather God intended from the beginning for animals and men to suffer pain and death. This finally denies the very Gospel of Jesus Christ who was sent into the world to save man from sin, death and the power of Satan.

Source: http://www.gennet.org/facts/ankerb.html

Well, whatever he may be called, my prof did give a good refutation of him. Just need to find my notes one of these days.

 

[Marcia]

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.

Since God carefully says, "so the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5), "so the evening and the morning were the second day" (v. 8) and so on in verses 13, 19, 23, and 31, I think we are to take this as a typical earth day of 24 hours.

The significance of the moon and sun being created on the 4th day show us that:
1) God creates light and darkness - it is not dependent on the sun or its movements

2) The sun and moon were being worshipped as gods then and God was putting them in their place. In fact, the words "sun" and "moon" are not even used, saying instead "the two great lights" and "the greater light" and the "lesser light."

With God knowing that this account was the very first part of our Bible, I do not think He would so carefully give us the idea that these were regular days (using the terms "morning and evening") unless they weren't. After all, the people who first got this information around Moses' time would have had no inkling that these days could be ages or long periods of time. They would have assumed a "day" meant a day.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think he may be called a "progressive creationist."

Yes, that is a subset of old-earth creationism which also includes day-age and gap creationism.

I don't agree with a lot of Hugh Ross's conclusions being a theistic evolutionist or as I prefer, evolutionary creationist. But I do appreciate his willingness to fairly give scientific evidence an honest go. I have read parts of his book, The Genesis Question and enjoyed his thoughts about some of the scientific difficulties with Genesis.

I don't have the time to rehash old arguments but just want to echo some wise words that have appeared on this thread.

I don't see the argument as science vs. the Bible but more like interpretation of science vs. interpretation of the Bible. I agree that God would not give us incorrect information in His Word but I also don't think He would give us incorrect information in His creation either. So while I might not agree with your understanding of Genesis, it would be your understanding I question, not God's ability to communicate. On the other hand if I disagree with someone on evolution, it's not the evidence I dispute but their interpretation of the evidence.

In our disagreement, may God be given glory for his creation!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yeah, you know, I almost typed "apelike creatures." Same difference to me. Adam and Eve were the first people according to the narrative of Genesis, and were clearly not apelike creatures. I think the point that man was made in the image of God is very significant here - animals are not made in the image of God. Man and animals are separate and always have been.

There are two points here. How are we made in the image of God. Do we look like him? God is a spirit or do you side with Mormonism? laugh: ) And we don't really know what Adam or Eve looked like. I just saw a History channel special on eve looking like she's from the Kikuyu tribe in Kenya. Was Adam a representative of Man or was he actually the first man? Keep in mind the bible seems to be promulgating incest at this point.

Funny!

Thanks.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Since God carefully says, "so the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5), "so the evening and the morning were the second day" (v. 8) and so on in verses 13, 19, 23, and 31, I think we are to take this as a typical earth day of 24 hours.

The significance of the moon and sun being created on the 4th day show us that:
1) God creates light and darkness - it is not dependent on the sun or its movements

2) The sun and moon were being worshipped as gods then and God was putting them in their place. In fact, the words "sun" and "moon" are not even used, saying instead "the two great lights" and "the greater light" and the "lesser light."

With God knowing that this account was the very first part of our Bible, I do not think He would so carefully give us the idea that these were regular days (using the terms "morning and evening") unless they weren't. After all, the people who first got this information around Moses' time would have had no inkling that these days could be ages or long periods of time. They would have assumed a "day" meant a day.

These people came from the same culture that built the Pyramids. I would not so quickly judge their knowledge of their world as being limited. The priest of Egypt had a strong understanding of how the stars moved. The ancients definately had an understanding of Eon. I would say yeah God was pointing out he made the heavenly bodies to reduce the view of these things being gods. But that would fit the outline perspective of creation rather than literal.

 

[Jim1999]

I don't think that 24 hours was even considered until recent years. The Jews considered it a day at sunset regardless of hours. They even start their Sabbath to-day at Friday's sunset.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't think that 24 hours was even considered until recent years. The Jews considered it a day at sunset regardless of hours. They even start their Sabbath to-day at Friday's sunset.

Cheers,

Jim

following that train of thought what makes us think that God was using our same measuring stick?

 

[lbaker]

I don't think that 24 hours was even considered until recent years. The Jews considered it a day at sunset regardless of hours. They even start their Sabbath to-day at Friday's sunset.

Cheers,

Jim

Now that is an interesting point. In Genesis it does say "the evening and the morning..." so it was at least written from a Jewish perspective of the day beginning at Sundown the previous day. That makes it sound even less like it is intended to be a science textbook and more like it is a Jewish tale of Creation making the point that God is God and not Tiamat.

 

[Jim1999]

I have said this before, in my opinion, the Bible is not a history text science primer or any other academic text. It is the story of redemption from beginning to end. So often we read into it our modern thought and assume that each time period should think as we do.

Time is irrelevant to God. He is eternal and eternity has neither beginning nor end..It is!

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Cheers,

Jim

By the way, we have a leap year every four years to catch up on missed time over those four years.

 

[lbaker]

I have said this before, in my opinion, the Bible is not a history text science primer or any other academic text. It is the story of redemption from beginning to end. So often we read into it our modern thought and assume that each time period should think as we do.

Amen! Amen! Amen! It is all about context, context, context!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Amen! Amen! Amen! It is all about context, context, context!

I always wondered about how time in the universe plays a part. I find it interesting that physicist believe there is a time shortly after the big bang called inflation where the original particles spread out faster than the speed of light which not only would cause a hypothetical tetrion but affect time with regards to Einstiens theory of Relativity. Gravity also affects time so how would understand the earth being formless and elements just floating in space? How would that effect time and creation days as well? Just some thoughts.

 

[lbaker]

I always wondered about how time in the universe plays a part. I find it interesting that physicist believe there is a time shortly after the big bang called inflation where the original particles spread out faster than the speed of light which not only would cause a hypothetical tetrion but affect time with regards to Einstiens theory of Relativity. Gravity also affects time so how would understand the earth being formless and elements just floating in space? How would that effect time and creation days as well? Just some thoughts.

Yeah, the more I read about all that stuff, the more I realize just how big and awesome God really is. Sometimes I think of Him as the "Great Engineer".

 

[annsni]

Keep in mind the bible seems to be promulgating incest at this point.

Thanks.

Yes He does. Remember that there are a LOT of marrying relatives in the early Old Testament. Is there a problem with that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes He does. Remember that there are a LOT of marrying relatives in the early Old Testament. Is there a problem with that?

Well, I did live in eastern Tennessee for a time and the problem with that is evident. (BTW I'm not saying everyone in Eastern Tennessee is inbred. Uh umm well Uh It's beautiful country out there :wavey: )

 

[lbaker]

Yes He does. Remember that there are a LOT of marrying relatives in the early Old Testament. Is there a problem with that?

So would this make Jerry Lee Lewis one of the Patriarchs?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have said this before, in my opinion, the Bible is not a history text science primer or any other academic text. It is the story of redemption from beginning to end. So often we read into it our modern thought and assume that each time period should think as we do.

Time is irrelevant to God. He is eternal and eternity has neither beginning nor end..It is!

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

Cheers,

Jim

By the way, we have a leap year every four years to catch up on missed time over those four years.

True, yet the Scriptures speak in every area of science. So that in all that it affirms, it is correct.

 

[annsni]

So would this make Jerry Lee Lewis one of the Patriarchs?

Umm, since he's from this past century, I think not. ??

 

[lbaker]

True, yet the Scriptures speak in every area of science. So that in all that it affirms, it is correct.

Are you sure about that?

I Samuel 2:8

8 He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.
"For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's;
upon them he has set the world.

Job 9:6

6 He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.

Job 38:4-6

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-

Psalm 136:6

6 who spread out the earth upon the waters,

So the Earth sits on some kind of pillars, on a foundation, with a cornerstone, floating on water?