We are all examples of evolution. It has nothing to do with changing species, but a family tree from which a variety of species descend from. In other words, a coyote didn't evolve from a wolf, but they both belong to the same genus that descend from its parent group, Caninae. The farther backward you classify the taxonomy of living organisms, the more living animals today fit in certain groups in regards to characteristics, dna, structure, habitat, diet, etc., eventually narrowing all life on Earth down to single universal common ancestor. You probably believe in adaptation, but how far will adaptation continue over the course of time when certain "kinds" no longer remain looking like its relatives? So evolution is happening right now, you just can't see its long term results yet, but you are looking at the long term results in the present of all living organisms' most recent ancestors. Genetic changes is happening already to the human species too, and has been speeding up in the last several centuries thanks to the advancement in technology. We can observe these changes that may continue to shape what could possibly become sub-species, and another group branching down each sub-species into who knows what. Of course, a long period of time is required for major differences in its diverse posterity, and so we have geological evidence that there was such a length of time to support our discovering how life developed on this planet. So evolution will always continue until life is obliterated from this planet, which, in my opinion, may not happen, especially if we seek a new earth.
What does Jesus walking on water have to do with this discussion? That was a miracle: a supernatural event defying natural laws under human observation. However, if creation can be observed and studied, then it is not necessarily a miracle. Creation does not defy the natural order of things, because it is an organic system. We must recognise the difference. It sounds more like you don't care to learn about the things science has discovered, because it may deny very core elements in your convictions. So now you have force to either avoid the inevitable victory of discovery by clinging to a theological position or admit that there were interpretative problems held by some of our well-respected forefathers. Sometimes tradition can get in the way of seeing the truth, and you know that as a Protestant. Don't let that recognition be limited to the function of the Christian and Church, but even the way Scripture should be properly understood. Augustine is a well-established theologian among Protestants, and yet he held a non-literalist position like many others in his day, but no one bats an eye.
You also seem to believe that Moses was a real figure too. I am not sure about his real identity anymore, but nonetheless, hold "his" writings to be essential to the biblical canon. His story has many elements and motifs found in other parts of Mesopotamian literature. His birth account is nearly identical to the birth legend of Sargon the Great:
It is possible that whoever wrote under the name of Moses, God used. However, it may likely be that Genesis is not intended, then, to be taken as a literal account, but one that conveyed Israelite lessons. Creation story contains the significance of the Sabbath. Noah's story contains the significance of clean and unclean animals for sacrifice (Genesis 7:2). Abraham's story contains the significance of Israel's foundation in regard to their right to their homeland and their covenant community. Onan's story in Genesis 38:6-11 was significant to teach the responsibility of a levirate marriage (carrying on your brother's name after his death through his brother's wife). You will find key elements of the Law preached throughout Genesis, long before Moses received them by revelation, establishing the Covenant. In considering this, we must then realise how Genesis should be interpreted in its historical and theological aspects. The problem with modern conservative Christianity is the fact that the position inerrancy and infallibility has hindered honest discussions about the nature of Scripture and its proper end, avoiding obstacles that challenge our bias.
We are told that a single cell being "evolved" to form all the plant and animal life that we have today and have had.
The first problem is that this "being" had no "life".... Evolution skips that part. They won't even discuss it. It's not part of their theory.
Second.. this "being" Had to replicate or it would have simply grown old and died.
Third.. This being had to have food.. Miraculously, it had a method of consuming food utilizing the energy and expelling waste...
Fourth, for some reason, if the above three were true.. It could have survived any tragedy, if only one of it's kind survived. But.. for some reason it started Asexual reproduction. Now it not only needed two survivors.. but one had to be male and the other female.. Or.. it went extinct.
Fifth.. if a new "species" somehow shows up... it needs both a male and female to show up at the same time.. Not only that but they have to be compatible, sexually.. So, if a squirrel showed up at the same time as a bunny... they have no future.
Sixth.. at some point, this single cell being, switched and became a plant.. or... if it was a plant.. it became animal... That... is a leap.
Seventh, all of this would take time.. and.. many many many slow transitions.. which don't exist.
The atheistic Darwinian "theory" of evolution is a vision of blind faith in impossibilities.
My faith, the faith on which I found my eternal life, which is based on the miraculous life of Christ Jesus, far outweighs the house of cards on which the "theory" of evolution is built.
This faith is so strong that, not only can it accept the truth of the gospel, but also holds the entire biblical scripture to be just as true.
When I went to Joggins Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia, I saw petrified trees that ran right up through the layers of rock. Perpendicular to the layers.
This meant one of two things..
1/ The sediment happened fast and fell around trees that were still upright.. all turning to rock... at the same short time.
or
2/ Some sediment happened around a tree and somehow the tree did not rot over the hundreds of thousands of years that the sediment supposedly piled up around it.
I'll go with #1..
It kinda blows the whole "millions of years" theory apart.
Upvote
0