Could God Have Used Evolution?

[Thinkingstuff]

Ha! Can you show me where in Scripture the Hebrew word "yowm" is paired with a number (first day, second day, etc.) and it means "eon"?

Then God was deceptive in creating Adam. Why can you not see that if He created Adam with age, the trees with age, the animals with age, that He could not create the earth with age. God was not deceptive. He did not say that He created anything as brand new.

That first paired with numbers is a disengenuous statement since if the context is outline then is appropiate.

God was not deceptive. He did not say that He created anything as brand new.

Brand new is implied with creation.

Then God was deceptive in creating Adam

You're using your view of the 6 days of creation to argue your point. ie if I believe in evolution then I don't accept your statement that Adam was created fully grown. So you are for me stating an intrinsic imposibility. Your question is flawed because I would naturally ask you to prove that Adam was created as a full grown man rather than an evolved representative of mankind.

 

[annsni]

That first paired with numbers is a disengenuous statement since if the context is outline then is appropiate.

No - no where in Hebrew literature is the term "day" used with a number to symbolize "eon". It was clear to the Hebrews that "day" meant a day and not a long period of time.

Brand new is implied with creation.

No it is not. Jesus made water in to wine. There is age built in there.

You're using your view of the 6 days of creation to argue your point. ie if I believe in evolution then I don't accept your statement that Adam was created fully grown. So you are for me stating an intrinsic imposibility. Your question is flawed because I would naturally ask you to prove that Adam was created as a full grown man rather than an evolved representative of mankind.

Oh the proof is in your court. God formed man out of the dust of the earth, breathed life into him and set him in the Garden of Eden. The Bible is clear that he's not representative of mankind but an actual human being.

I once again go back to the fact: death entered to world due to sin. See Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. If evolution was true, then death entered the world BEFORE sin and Scripture refutes that. Once again, we come to the fact: do you believe God or man?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No - no where in Hebrew literature is the term "day" used with a number to symbolize "eon". It was clear to the Hebrews that "day" meant a day and not a long period of time.




No it is not. Jesus made water in to wine. There is age built in there.




Oh the proof is in your court. God formed man out of the dust of the earth, breathed life into him and set him in the Garden of Eden. The Bible is clear that he's not representative of mankind but an actual human being.

I once again go back to the fact: death entered to world due to sin. See Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. If evolution was true, then death entered the world BEFORE sin and Scripture refutes that. Once again, we come to the fact: do you believe God or man?

You can't prove the bold. Though in principle for a christian it is. There is nowhere in the bible that is explaining these issues as in Genesis.

Water into wine argument is also problematic. Wine is by its nature required contains alcohol (which is why I wonder at the grape past argument for many protestant churches giving out grape juice). The earth by its nature is not required to be old.

How is the ball in my court to prove God created man out of the ground? It seems to me that its your case that man was how do you prove it? Because God said so. What if he wasn't being literal (which is the point) then you must first show he was.

 

[Revmitchell]

When we hold for the standard for truth man's flawed science that is ever changing then we interpret scripture by that science rather than interpret creation by scripture.

Scripture needs to be interpreted separate from science standing on its own. Then go to the creation and interpret it from scripture. Otherwise you get all these weird allegories where none exist.

 

[annsni]

B]I once again go back to the fact: death entered to world due to sin. See Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. If evolution was true, then death entered the world BEFORE sin and Scripture refutes that. Once again, we come to the fact: do you believe God or man?[/B]

You can't prove the bold. Though in principle for a christian it is. There is nowhere in the bible that is explaining these issues as in Genesis.

Are you serious? Did you read the Scriptures? Evolution must declare these verses false in order to stand. Wow.

Water into wine argument is also problematic. Wine is by its nature required contains alcohol (which is why I wonder at the grape past argument for many protestant churches giving out grape juice). The earth by its nature is not required to be old.

But it does if there is light, plants that give fruit, animals that fly and man that is in charge of everything as Scripture says.

How is the ball in my court to prove God created man out of the ground? It seems to me that its your case that man was how do you prove it? Because God said so. What if he wasn't being literal (which is the point) then you must first show he was.

If God is not being literal in Genesis 1 and 2, then the rest of Genesis can be tossed out of the window - including the fall of man, sin, death, the promise to Abraham and the promise of a Messiah.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you serious? Did you read the Scriptures? Evolution must declare these verses false in order to stand. Wow.



But it does if there is light, plants that give fruit, animals that fly and man that is in charge of everything as Scripture says.



If God is not being literal in Genesis 1 and 2, then the rest of Genesis can be tossed out of the window - including the fall of man, sin, death, the promise to Abraham and the promise of a Messiah.

I'll ask a DHK question. How do you define Death? If death is sufficienlty defined in scripture you'll get your answer. Yes. I did read the scripture. And as a practice I read it every day. Hint Death should be defined separation from God. And if this is the case then the principle of death (separation from God) is at play from the representative of Mankind. However, Death physical is a natural process and if death were not involved then the world would not be able to deal with the plagues on verhmen and other things. Over population would also be a problem.

 

[annsni]

I'll ask a DHK question. How do you define Death? If death is sufficienlty defined in scripture you'll get your answer. Yes. I did read the scripture. And as a practice I read it every day. Hint Death should be defined separation from God. And if this is the case then the principle of death (separation from God) is at play from the representative of Mankind. However, Death physical is a natural process and if death were not involved then the world would not be able to deal with the plagues on verhmen and other things. Over population would also be a problem.

Scripture speaks of death as the enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). In evolution, death is a friend because it begets bigger and better things.

As for plagues and vermin, see the curse.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scripture speaks of death as the enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). In evolution, death is a friend because it begets bigger and better things.

As for plagues and vermin, see the curse.

Death is the enemy in the sence that it is separation from God. In evolution it is a natural course of action.

 

[annsni]

Death is the enemy in the sence that it is separation from God. In evolution it is a natural course of action.

Just before the verse in 1 Corinthians 15 that speaks of death being the last enemy that will be destroyed, we see in context that death means death. "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead," Christ was not raised from separation from God but from the dead. Death is clearly physical death and not just spiritual death. Once again, death is an enemy - not something that helped to create.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just before the verse in 1 Corinthians 15 that speaks of death being the last enemy that will be destroyed, we see in context that death means death. "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead," Christ was not raised from separation from God but from the dead. Death is clearly physical death and not just spiritual death. Once again, death is an enemy - not something that helped to create.

Well, lets look at that

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Strange how the term enemy is not applied to those who "sleep" or are dead. Dosen't sound insidious.

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

This seems to match the principles of evolution.

See I can quote verses too.

Also note the use of death in these verses:

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Note that it differentiates types of bodies stating that Flesh and blood connot inherit the Kingdom of God. So there is a differentiation mentioned here.

 

[annsni]

Well, lets look at that



Strange how the term enemy is not applied to those who "sleep" or are dead. Dosen't sound insidious.

Because Christ has overcome death. Those who have "fallen asleep" are those who are with Christ - and who's bodies are "sleeping" until the "dead in Christ shall rise".

This seems to match the principles of evolution.

The fact that a seed needs to die before it turns into a plant? That a body must die for it to be raised again? Yeah - that shows evolution.

See I can quote verses too.

I don't know why since you don't believe what they say.

Also note the use of death in these verses:



Note that it differentiates types of bodies stating that Flesh and blood connot inherit the Kingdom of God. So there is a differentiation mentioned here.

I don't understand what that has to do with this discussion.



You know what? You don't believe what the Bible says. It's a story. Genesis is pretend - just a fairy tale to explain. That's your choice.

I believe in the Word of God and what He says. What is true is true and I see no reason to doubt that the God of all creation can create whatever and however He wishes. He told us how and I'll believe Him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because Christ has overcome death. Those who have "fallen asleep" are those who are with Christ - and who's bodies are "sleeping" until the "dead in Christ shall rise".



The fact that a seed needs to die before it turns into a plant? That a body must die for it to be raised again? Yeah - that shows evolution.



I don't know why since you don't believe what they say.



I don't understand what that has to do with this discussion.



You know what? You don't believe what the Bible says. It's a story. Genesis is pretend - just a fairy tale to explain. That's your choice.

I believe in the Word of God and what He says. What is true is true and I see no reason to doubt that the God of all creation can create whatever and however He wishes. He told us how and I'll believe Him.

I believe in the word of God and I don't think your last statement was in question. We are just disagreeing on method choice.

On the other hand the only reason we are really disagreeing is because I volunteered to take up the other side and others didn't seem to think that was a good idea so I stayed on the evolutionist side of the argument which was a lot of fun btw. Really illicited some good responce but there is the typical responce to the evolutionist that gets regurgitated alot. They don't believe the bible which isn't true. they dont' believe it the way you do. So questioning their faith is not really reasonable because they can question yours. I've stayed on the defense most of the time. Real evolutionist would take the offence. How can you believe what you do with all the evidence pointing against you? Would be their perspective.

 

[annsni]

I believe in the word of God and I don't think your last statement was in question. We are just disagreeing on method choice.

On the other hand the only reason we are really disagreeing is because I volunteered to take up the other side and others didn't seem to think that was a good idea so I stayed on the evolutionist side of the argument which was a lot of fun btw. Really illicited some good responce but there is the typical responce to the evolutionist that gets regurgitated alot. They don't believe the bible which isn't true. they dont' believe it the way you do. So questioning their faith is not really reasonable because they can question yours. I've stayed on the defense most of the time. Real evolutionist would take the offence. How can you believe what you do with all the evidence pointing against you? Would be their perspective.

What if the evidence pointed to the fact that there was no God? Would you accept it?

I accept God's Word as it's written. What is narrative, I take as narrative. What is parable, I take as parable. However I do not discount the creation account, the flood or the parting of the seas as per my Catholic school upbringing told me to. If I take parts of Scripture and discount them as "stories", then God is a liar and salvation is false.

 

[Deacon]

No - no where in Hebrew literature is the term "day" used with a number to symbolize "eon". It was clear to the Hebrews that "day" meant a day and not a long period of time.

I accept God's word as written too, and I disagree with your interpretation.

Are these uses of 'yom' where an ordinal number is used explicitly 24-hour days?

Zechariah 14:7-11
Hosea 6:1-3

Rob

 

[annsni]

I accept God's word as written too, and I disagree with your interpretation.

Are these uses of 'yom' where an ordinal number is used explicitly 24-hour days?

Zechariah 14:7-11
Hosea 6:1-3

Rob

Zechariah has an ordinal number in English but not in Hebrew.

In Hosea, it's not until the "third day" that it is an ordinal number and I think we can pretty safely say that "third day" is in fact, a day.

 

[DHK]

On the other hand the only reason we are really disagreeing is because I volunteered to take up the other side and others didn't seem to think that was a good idea so I stayed on the evolutionist side of the argument which was a lot of fun btw. Really illicited some good responce but there is the typical responce to the evolutionist that gets regurgitated alot. They don't believe the bible which isn't true. they dont' believe it the way you do. So questioning their faith is not really reasonable because they can question yours. I've stayed on the defense most of the time. Real evolutionist would take the offence. How can you believe what you do with all the evidence pointing against you? Would be their perspective.

Julian Huxley, that great promoter of evolution, once said:
"Belief in evolution? I don't believe in evolution because it is credible; but rather because belief in God is far too incredible."
Evolution became his belief because the alternative was too bitter a pill for him to swallow, and that was submitting to God as his Lord and Master. He knew that the logical consequence of admitting to God as creator is that he is the creature, and therefore God, the Creator, must be his Lord and Master. He did not like those implications and thus chose to believe in evolution instead.

To chose evolution is to choose unbelief over God. There is no such thing as a "Christian evolutionist," in spite of what some on this board think. The two systems oppose each other, and in no way can be harmonized.

Faith needs an object. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ my Lord. The evolutionist has treaded into an area where science cannot go. It has gone beyond the limitations of science and has entered into the realm of the metaphysical. What is the faith of the evolutionist: the big bang? What? Certainly not God! How did the earth begin? If it were the big bang, where did the gasses originate from? Something had to start somewhere. But somehow the evolutionist by-passes God, and cannot account for the beginning of all things. They just magically appeared--a superstition no better off than Hinduism--blind faith.
I would rather my faith be intelligently based on the God of creation, then blindly based and superstitiously based on something made out of nothing without a god, that just magically appears. What makes more sense to you?

What about science in and of itself?
The definition of science is: knowledge gained by observation, categorized systematically.
The important part of that definition is that there must be an observer. If there is no observer, there is no science. Science is knowledge gained by observation.
Who was there to observe the creation of the world? God was. But here you have the evolutionist entering into the realm of the metaphysical, a realm outside the area of science, the area of observation, where science cannot go. This is where faith comes in; not science. Is evolution a faith? It acts like one.

If science deals outside of the physical uniiverse it is outside of its realm. It is limited by the physical universe, and cannot delve into the spiritual. That is a limitation of science.

Another limitation of science is its inability to prove a universal negative, that is a blanket statement of denial, such as:
--There is no God.
--Science has disproved the existence of miracles.
These universal negatives lie outside the realm of science and, logically, are impossible to prove.

Another limitation: Science cannot make value judgements. That is, it cannot assign worth to an object. How much is a gallon of gas worth? It is only worth the amount a person is willing to pay. Science cannot determine what a person will pay for something.

Moral judgments are also outside the realm of science. Science developed nuclear energy, but the decisions regarding the use or misuse of that energy science cannot determine.

All scientific work is fallible and prone to error.

Science is limited in that it is forced to deal models rather than with reality. Our senses are fallible.

Science is bound by certain God-ordained restrictions.
It is God that modifies the weather, that causes the process of decay, that gives us the seasons in their order, etc.

Finally, a scientist is limited by his own prejudice or bias. What he likes or dislkes will determine what type of model he will choose or develop. (Ever hear of those studies that "prove" that smoking does NOT cause cancer)?

Now, to be fair, I didn't come up with these on my own. These are taught in grade nine science, and are in the introduction of the book: "Earth Science" by BJU. I only summarized them.

The first and most important distinctive of every Baptist and any true believer, is that the Bible is his final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Bible or Science? True science does not contradict the Bible; but evolution does.

 

[Marcia]

I did see your post and I guess he might be worth the gander but not if he's some hairbrained creationist..

Well, you must not be reading what I wrote because twice I pointed out that Denton IS A AN ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC!!!

How in the world did you miss that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Julian Huxley, that great promoter of evolution, once said:
"Belief in evolution? I don't believe in evolution because it is credible; but rather because belief in God is far too incredible."
Evolution became his belief because the alternative was too bitter a pill for him to swallow, and that was submitting to God as his Lord and Master. He knew that the logical consequence of admitting to God as creator is that he is the creature, and therefore God, the Creator, must be his Lord and Master. He did not like those implications and thus chose to believe in evolution instead.

To chose evolution is to choose unbelief over God. There is no such thing as a "Christian evolutionist," in spite of what some on this board think. The two systems oppose each other, and in no way can be harmonized.

Faith needs an object. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ my Lord. The evolutionist has treaded into an area where science cannot go. It has gone beyond the limitations of science and has entered into the realm of the metaphysical. What is the faith of the evolutionist: the big bang? What? Certainly not God! How did the earth begin? If it were the big bang, where did the gasses originate from? Something had to start somewhere. But somehow the evolutionist by-passes God, and cannot account for the beginning of all things. They just magically appeared--a superstition no better off than Hinduism--blind faith.
I would rather my faith be intelligently based on the God of creation, then blindly based and superstitiously based on something made out of nothing without a god, that just magically appears. What makes more sense to you?

What about science in and of itself?
The definition of science is: knowledge gained by observation, categorized systematically.
The important part of that definition is that there must be an observer. If there is no observer, there is no science. Science is knowledge gained by observation.
Who was there to observe the creation of the world? God was. But here you have the evolutionist entering into the realm of the metaphysical, a realm outside the area of science, the area of observation, where science cannot go. This is where faith comes in; not science. Is evolution a faith? It acts like one.

If science deals outside of the physical uniiverse it is outside of its realm. It is limited by the physical universe, and cannot delve into the spiritual. That is a limitation of science.

Another limitation of science is its inability to prove a universal negative, that is a blanket statement of denial, such as:
--There is no God.
--Science has disproved the existence of miracles.
These universal negatives lie outside the realm of science and, logically, are impossible to prove.

Another limitation: Science cannot make value judgements. That is, it cannot assign worth to an object. How much is a gallon of gas worth? It is only worth the amount a person is willing to pay. Science cannot determine what a person will pay for something.

Moral judgments are also outside the realm of science. Science developed nuclear energy, but the decisions regarding the use or misuse of that energy science cannot determine.

All scientific work is fallible and prone to error.

Science is limited in that it is forced to deal models rather than with reality. Our senses are fallible.

Science is bound by certain God-ordained restrictions.
It is God that modifies the weather, that causes the process of decay, that gives us the seasons in their order, etc.

Finally, a scientist is limited by his own prejudice or bias. What he likes or dislkes will determine what type of model he will choose or develop. (Ever hear of those studies that "prove" that smoking does NOT cause cancer)?

Now, to be fair, I didn't come up with these on my own. These are taught in grade nine science, and are in the introduction of the book: "Earth Science" by BJU. I only summarized them.

The first and most important distinctive of every Baptist and any true believer, is that the Bible is his final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Bible or science? True science does not contradict the Bible; but evolution does.

guess. Most probably you would be wrong.

 

[Marcia]

Did you see my post mentioning that book by Michael Denton (and atheist or agnostic) that challenges evolutionary theory? He's not the only one.

Excerpt from my previous post that you responded to by saying

I did see your post and I guess he might be worth the gander but not if he's some hairbrained creationist..

And I think that would be "harebrained."

 

[Marcia]

If God made the world seem to be older than it is (which must be the case for light to travel so far with the stars) then he's lying.

We don't know how old the world is. Dating is based on theories that it is old.

If God does not lie, then why can't you accept the 6 days of creation as recounted in Genesis and again in Exodus?

Why did God reiterate this in Exodus to people who clearly thought 6 days meant 6 days if it did not mean 6 days? Wouldn't that be lying, or at least deceptive, to say 6 days using "morning and evening" if it wasn't 6 days? Logic and reason are on the side of reading Genesis for what it says.