Couldn't God have used Evolution?

First of all, it's BILLIONS not millions.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned. Scriptural Implications

Click to expand...

That might be for some people, but for many many others, evolution doesn't mean God no longer exists. Nor does it somehow mean that the Bible is no longer infallible.

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this comes directly from the website (God knows I've seen enough of that thing already) or from you, but once again, that's wrong.

Couldn't God have used Evolution?

Click to expand...

Of course not it would upset too many people.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.
When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Click to expand...

Not just the millions of years that are a bit out as Tacere mentioned, the 200 years is out too. This process of harmonising our interpretation of scripture to science has been going on twice as long as that, since Copernicus and Galileo came up with the strange idea the earth went around the sun. Before that everyone knew the bible said that the sun went round the earth. The church changed its interpretation of all the geocentric passages, and now there are hardly any Christian geocentrists to be found. Even young earth creationists reject geocentrism and they are quite right, if somewhat inconsistent. The thing is, they accept the science of Copernicus and the theological harmonisations that followed, but it didn't mean the Word of God was no longer authoritative, or the character of our loving God was questioned. The church stopped believing the sun went round the earth, but the sky didn't fall on our heads (metaphorically speaking) and the bible did not cease to be the word of God.

Christians should not be afraid of the truth, especially the truth we discover about the universe our Father created. It can be uncomfortable when some of our treasured interpretations of God's word turn out to be mistaken, but we should not be afraid of that. Our God is a lot bigger than any of our mistaken interpretations.

Atheist like Huxley would love to be right about the bible, you shouldn't buy into their arguments. Organisations like AiG do a lot of damage to peoples faith by preaching Huxley the way they do. Too many kids go to college from a YEC background and discover evolution is true and well supported by the scientific evidence. So they stop believing in the creationism they have been taught, but they do hold onto the Huxley the Creationists taught them and their faith is shipwrecked as a result.

It is seriously upsetting to see so many Christians buy into molecules-to-man evolution. What a shame.

Assyrian said:

So they stop believing in the creationism they have been taught, but they do hold onto the Huxley the Creationists taught them and their faith is shipwrecked as a result.

Click to expand...

Our faith is hardly shipwrecked, it is built on a relationship from above, not a belief in our mind.

Paul talks of people's faith being shipwrecked so it seems a real possibility. I used that phrase because it is a scriptural one, also because it does not say what is the final result of a faith so shipwrecked. Does God still hold on faithfully to one whose faith has been shipwrecked and has lost their belief in God and the bible? I cannot say. I sincerely hope he does.

But the fact remains YEC teachers in sunday schools and YEC preachers in church tell people if evolution is true the bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. And kids hear that message and believe it the same as they believe the YEC message of a 6ooo year old earth and dinosaurs on the ark. Then when they find out evolution is true they abandon everything their preachers told them, except that the claim if evolution is true the bible cannot be trusted. They are sacrificing the children's trust in God and scripture to build the altar of YEC. They are trying to support creationism but end up wrecking the children's faith.

Assyrian said:

Paul talks of people's faith being shipwrecked so it seems a real possibility. I used that phrase because it is a scriptural one, also because it does not say what is the final result of a faith so shipwrecked. Does God still hold on faithfully to one whose faith has been shipwrecked and has lost their belief in God and the bible? I cannot say. I sincerely hope he does.

But the fact remains YEC teachers in sunday schools and YEC preachers in church tell people if evolution is true the bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. And kids hear that message and believe it the same as they believe the YEC message of a 6ooo year old earth and dinosaurs on the ark. Then when they find out evolution is true they abandon everything their preachers told them, except that the claim if evolution is true the bible cannot be trusted. They are sacrificing the children's trust in God and scripture to build the altar of YEC. They are trying to support creationism but end up wrecking the children's faith.

Click to expand...

That is why I said what I said. Christianity is a relationship with GOD, not a belief in our minds.

Many folks are not seeking that life changing regeneration and experience for themselves, and are only changing their mind about their lives.

A true born-again Spirit-filled Christian really doesn't care about what evidence is provided against whatever subject to them, they have a direct contact with the ruler of the universe to know better out of it.

Whatever material thing could be presented by man will have no bearing upon them unless GOD witnesses it as truth to them inside. Then only will they accept it. That is the understanding of "let GOD be true and every man a liar."

ARBITER01 said:

That is why I said what I said. Christianity is a relationship with GOD, not a belief in our minds.

Click to expand...

But it is a relationship based on faith, which becomes a problem when that faith has been shaken by bad teaching, both the creation science that kids discover is bogus when they go to college, and worse, the teaching that if evolution is true they can no longer trust God or the bible.

Many folks are not seeking that life changing regeneration and experience for themselves, and are only changing their mind about their lives.

A true born-again Spirit-filled Christian really doesn't care about what evidence is provided against whatever subject to them, they have a direct contact with the ruler of the universe to know better out of it.

Click to expand...

Spirit filled Christians should care passionately about the truth and have the humility to realise we can get things wrong. Christians believed for one and a half millennia that the bible said the sun went round the earth. So what do you do when science comes along and says, well actually that is just the earth rotating and really it is the earth that goes round the sun. Do we say "We know the ruler of the universe who created the sun and planets and put them in the firmament, we don't care what scientists say". Or do we say "We know the creator of the universe, whatever way the heavens go, we know he is the one who created it. Looks like we got that bit wrong, but that is not going to shake our trust. Lets go back to the bible and see where we might have misunderstood things.

Whatever material thing could be presented by man will have no bearing upon them unless GOD witnesses it as truth to them inside. Then only will they accept it. That is the understanding of "let GOD be true and every man a liar."

Click to expand...

That applies equally to YEC. God is true even if creationist have got their interpretation wrong, just as God was true when everyone believed the sun went round the earth. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. :9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But I would not rely on the gift of discernment to decide what is science. That is not what it is for. We can discern spirits and we can discern ugliness and sin in our own hearts and the actions of others, sometimes. But we have not been given the gift of discerning science. Figuring out how the universe works is our responsibility, part of the creation mandate we read in Gen 1:28.

Oddly though it was the ugliness of some anti evolution condemnatory preaching that finally turned me from YEC/agnostic-on-origins, to reexamine scripture to see if we could have got our interpetatation of Genesis wrong, because I did not see the grace and love of Christ in that preaching. I still don't in a lot of YEC literature I read.

Assyrian said:

But it is a relationship based on faith, which becomes a problem when that faith has been shaken by bad teaching, both the creation science that kids discover is bogus when they go to college, and worse, the teaching that if evolution is true they can no longer trust God or the bible.

Click to expand...

That faith is the faith of the Son of GOD. It is a gift inside when we are born again, not something we have to drum up within ourselves and maintain somehow.

Spirit filled Christians should care passionately about the truth and have the humility to realise we can get things wrong. Christians believed for one and a half millennia that the bible said the sun went round the earth. So what do you do when science comes along and says, well actually that is just the earth rotating and really it is the earth that goes round the sun. Do we say "We know the ruler of the universe who created the sun and planets and put them in the firmament, we don't care what scientists say". Or do we say "We know the creator of the universe, whatever way the heavens go, we know he is the one who created it. Looks like we got that bit wrong, but that is not going to shake our trust. Lets go back to the bible and see where we might have misunderstood things.


That applies equally to YEC. God is true even if creationist have got their interpretation wrong, just as God was true when everyone believed the sun went round the earth. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. :9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But I would not rely on the gift of discernment to decide what is science. That is not what it is for. We can discern spirits and we can discern ugliness and sin in our own hearts and the actions of others, sometimes. But we have not been given the gift of discerning science. Figuring out how the universe works is our responsibility, part of the creation mandate we read in Gen 1:28.

Oddly though it was the ugliness of some anti evolution condemnatory preaching that finally turned me from YEC/agnostic-on-origins, to reexamine scripture to see if we could have got our interpetatation of Genesis wrong, because I did not see the grace and love of Christ in that preaching. I still don't in a lot of YEC literature I read.

Click to expand...

I can sense your heart in what you are speaking here, and I can agree with you about the hurtful preaching and teaching promoted, but true Spirit-filled Christians have only one thing to do in regards to material evidence,... hear what The Spirit says.

The material world is secondary to The Spirit, and when we give GOD HIS place within our lives to help us decide events and such, we keep that material world secondary like it should be.

Mankind can come up with all sorts of explanations and insights, but absolute truth is of GOD, not men, hence why we must trust HIS leading and insight over whatever mankind may present.

Besides, our existance here is to be conformed into the image of HIS Son, not wrestle with opinions. I don't say that to sidestep you somehow, it is just what scripture calls us to do.

There really isn't that much evidence for evolution. If evolution were true, then there should be millions of failed evolutions lying around (i.e. a creature that was produced by a genetic mutation but was not better adapted to its environment). Also, there should be many, many more transitional forms (the "transitional forms" that have been found could fit in a single coffin). The supposed ancestors of humans have turned out to be normal humans with bone diseases.

There are theological problems with evolution as well. Christs sacrifice took away sin, just as Adam's transgression brought it (Romans 5:12-21). If Adam did not exist as a federal head of humanity (which evolution requires), then neither can Christ be our federal head to take away our sins.

@Arbiter - A born again Christian certainly does care what evidence is brought before him! We just need to be critical of "evidence" since people will suppress the truth in their unrighteousness and present falsehoods to us. An example of this can be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:14 where Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, then . . . your faith is in vain." Recently, there was a claim that the tomb of Jesus was found, with his bones. Do we examine the evidence? Of course! The claim turned out to be based on very shaky ground and died off quickly, but it is still worth investigating.

@Assyrian - If evolution controversy ruins someone's faith, I would submit that they never had saving faith in the first place (John 6:39).

Epsilon5 said:

@Arbiter - A born again Christian certainly does care what evidence is brought before him! We just need to be critical of "evidence" since people will suppress the truth in their unrighteousness and present falsehoods to us. An example of this can be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:14 where Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, then . . . your faith is in vain." Recently, there was a claim that the tomb of Jesus was found, with his bones. Do we examine the evidence? Of course! The claim turned out to be based on very shaky ground and died off quickly, but it is still worth investigating.

Click to expand...

A lot of folks would like Christians to think they must validate or prove something all the time with mankind, but it simply is not true my friend. Our duty is to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, not debating and arguing with folks all the time.

Most of that stuff is just distractions thrown at us to take us off the narrow path.

Epsilon5 said:

There really isn't that much evidence for evolution.

Click to expand...

There really is a huge amount of evidence, you just don't get told about it if you stick to creationist sources.

If evolution were true...

Click to expand...

Be careful with arguments like that, they usually stem from a misunderstanding of the subject and how it actually works. The same line of argument can be used against Christianity, if Christianity were true there would be no hospitals in America...

then there should be millions of failed evolutions lying around (i.e. a creature that was produced by a genetic mutation but was not better adapted to its environment).

Click to expand...

Actually there are a lot of nasty genetic mutations around. A friend of mine died recently of Huntington's chorea.

Also, there should be many, many more transitional forms (the "transitional forms" that have been found could fit in a single coffin).

Click to expand...

I have heard that claim made about hominid transitionals, in fact there are a lot more transitional forms than that that are well documented. Have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
The claim hominid transitionals would fit in a single coffin ignores the fact you can really fit a lot of skeletons in a single coffin once the flesh has decayed, more if there are just skulls or skull fragments. To have a look at that particular claim see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

The supposed ancestors of humans have turned out to be normal humans with bone diseases.

Click to expand...

A claim made about the first neanderthal skeleton found. It was quickly debunked, especially as more healthy neanderthal skeletons (well healthy for a skeleton) were found. It would be a strange bone disease that reaches back through time through older and older rock strata making the sufferers look more and more like chimps the further back and lower down in the strata you go.


For a larger image see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

There are theological problems with evolution as well. Christs sacrifice took away sin, just as Adam's transgression brought it (Romans 5:12-21). If Adam did not exist as a federal head of humanity (which evolution requires), then neither can Christ be our federal head to take away our sins.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of Christians who see not conflict between evolution and a literal Adam being federal head. Personally I think Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by faith and his complete work on the Cross does not depend in any way on Adam. If you look at verse 15 you will see Paul is using Adam as a figurative picture of Christ, Adam... who is the figure of him that was to come. Figurative comparisons do not need to be literal to work.

If evolution controversy ruins someone's faith, I would submit that they never had saving faith in the first place (John 6:39).

Click to expand...

Possibly, but who are we to judge. Were the people who shipwrecked their faith in Paul's day never true believers to start with? Why didn't Paul say so? What I do know is that Christ takes a very dim view of people who cause children to stumble. Evolution does not need to be a problem for anyones faith. But if you teach you children in Sunday school that if evolution is true the bible is wrong then you are asking for trouble.

The bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old, that was Ussher and his overzealous literalism. The bible does say God made Adam out of dust, but it says he made us out of clay too and neither of us thinks there is a conflict between the bible and obstetrics.

Assyrian said:

Paul talks of people's faith being shipwrecked so it seems a real possibility. I used that phrase because it is a scriptural one, also because it does not say what is the final result of a faith so shipwrecked. Does God still hold on faithfully to one whose faith has been shipwrecked and has lost their belief in God and the bible? I cannot say. I sincerely hope he does.

But the fact remains YEC teachers in sunday schools and YEC preachers in church tell people if evolution is true the bible is wrong and cannot be trusted. And kids hear that message and believe it the same as they believe the YEC message of a 6ooo year old earth and dinosaurs on the ark. Then when they find out evolution is true they abandon everything their preachers told them, except that the claim if evolution is true the bible cannot be trusted. They are sacrificing the children's trust in God and scripture to build the altar of YEC. They are trying to support creationism but end up wrecking the children's faith.

Click to expand...

Well, I do not believe preachers or pastors should abandon an interpretation of the scriptures when such an interpretation is a reasonable of the text. Even if there is existing seemingly conflicting scientific evidence.

Young Earth Creationism, which generally speaking holds God created the heavens and earth in six days, created all the living things on the earth, including man and woman, and did so 6,000-12,000 years ago, is a reasonable interpretation of Genesis. I personally do not ascribe to this view but I cannot say it is unreasonable or a fabrication of the text of Genesis.

Now, since this is a reasonable view, and assuming the view is a correct interpretation of the text, and reasonable views have a good likelihood of being correct, then the claim evolution contradicts Genesis and therefore, calls into question the veracity of the bible is not a terribly flawed position. The Genesis account of creation, if literally understood or from a YEC perspective, does not permit for an evolutionary explanation for all or most life we presently see and know to exist. In other words, they are not compatible but contradictory.

A parallel example would be to find the story someone told you is in fact incorrect, not true, a contradiction. Then, you are exposed to extraordinary evidence to indicate and suggest a contrary view is true in regards to some aspect of the story told to you. Would this then not justifiably make one suspect perhaps some other parts of the story are also perhaps not true or accurate? I think it does.

The Biblical idea/theme, being contradicted by an opposing idea where the opposing idea is supported by significant evidence, and the contradicted Biblical idea/theme is one of great importance, permits the reasonable notion to question the veracity of other parts of the bible and even allow one to believe its fantastic stories are false. After all, if one calls into question the remarkable creation account of Genesis, then one could also call into question the phenomenon of God, becoming flesh, dying for humanity, and rising again from the dead.

I do not think it is such a leap to say, "Well the creation account of Genesis is most likely false, a myth. Therefore, I am skeptical about some of the other fantastic claims in the bible (i.e. miralces, such as a talking Donkey, Sea of Reeds splitting, feeding thousands with a few loafs of bread, etcetera). The reliability of the Bible can legitimately and reasonable become an issue and questioned.

Yet, I do not think it is the YEC fault someone fell away when they are exposed to evolution and the facts supporting it. We should not place the blame on them for providing their congregation with an interpretation that is reasonably supported by the text and then making correct and reasonable implications on this basis, i.e. evolution contradicts the Genesis account of creation and if you question this part then the reliability of the entire Bible is at issue. Those are reasonable positions taken by YEC.

From this perspective, in my opinion the cause for those who fall away after being exposed to evolution and its factual foundations is not the pastor/preachers who espouse YEC and then make reasonable implications of their faith and the veracity of the bible on this basis. The cause for this segment of people to lose their faith is the contradictory account of human creation supported by a lot of evidence and the acceptance of the reasonable implications resulting from this event , as opposed to the pastors/preachers espousing YEC.

Assyrian said:

The bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old, that was Ussher and his overzealous literalism. The bible does say God made Adam out of dust, but it says he made us out of clay too and neither of us thinks there is a conflict between the bible and obstetrics.

Click to expand...

The bible may not explicitly tell us this but it certainly is a reasonable inference to be drawn from the text. If literalism of a text leads to a reasonable interpretation,then I see no problem with a literalist application.

A literalist interpretation where one does not deviate at all from the text account who created man, how he was created, how he came alive, fell, and reproduced with woman is a reasonable interpretation of the text since it adheres to the plain meaning of the words expressed in the text itself.

Given what we know about human reproduction, the age at which women can no longer reproduce, and such a limitation existing in the bible (Abram and Sarah, although a legitimate question would be whether Eve would have possessed such biological constraints before the fall), in combination of the geneology provided in Genesis, and one can fairly calculate to some degree of reasonable approximation the age of the earth. It is an age which is not without some support in the scripture but rather enough textual support to make it a reasonable dating system of the earth, on the basis of what is said in the text (not asserting it as scientific fact).

deana1003 said:

I have had many questions on this Subject. So I found a website that will Give you some great anwsers.


Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.
When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.
Scriptural Implications

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

For more on this article visit this website below:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution

Click to expand...

No matter what anyone says there is only one answer to this. YES he could have. No we'll never know.

that's all.

NotreDame said:

Well, I do not believe preachers or pastors should abandon an interpretation of the scriptures when such an interpretation is a reasonable of the text. Even if there is existing seemingly conflicting scientific evidence.

Click to expand...

So we should still be preaching geocentrism? Because that was a very reasonable interpretation of a wide range of passages, an interpretation so obvious it was completely unchallenged before science provided the conflicting evidence that it was the earth went round the sun.

The difference for us today is we have an easier job than when the church was dealing with heliocentrism. Not only do we have their example in dealing with a conflict between science and traditional interpretation, the passage we are dealing already had a wide range of interpretations beside the literalist one which was shown to be wrong. Why do Christians make such heavy weather of it today?

Young Earth Creationism, which generally speaking holds God created the heavens and earth in six days, created all the living things on the earth, including man and woman, and did so 6,000-12,000 years ago, is a reasonable interpretation of Genesis. I personally do not ascribe to this view but I cannot say it is unreasonable or a fabrication of the text of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Sure, it is a reasonable interpretation of the text, not the only interpretation around, there were range of different view through the history of the church with some of the greatest bible scholars taking a figurative view. But certainly it was one possible interpretation and a common one at that. But one that turns out to have been mistaken.

Now, since this is a reasonable view, and assuming the view is a correct interpretation of the text, and reasonable views have a good likelihood of being correct, then the claim evolution contradicts Genesis and therefore, calls into question the veracity of the bible is not a terribly flawed position. The Genesis account of creation, if literally understood or from a YEC perspective, does not permit for an evolutionary explanation for all or most life we presently see and know to exist. In other words, they are not compatible but contradictory.

Click to expand...

Certainly if you assume the literal interpretation of Genesis is correct then Genesis contradicts evolution. But if you assume the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages are correct then they contradict heliocentrism and modern astronomy. The geocentric interpretation seemed reasonable at the time too. It was still wrong.

A parallel example would be to find the story someone told you is in fact incorrect, not true, a contradiction. Then, you are exposed to extraordinary evidence to indicate and suggest a contrary view is true in regards to some aspect of the story told to you. Would this then not justifiably make one suspect perhaps some other parts of the story are also perhaps not true or accurate? I think it does.

Click to expand...

If we are honest with ourselves we will have to question what the person says. However if we really trust them we will go back and check that we understood what they said in the first place and see if we understood them properly. The alternative is living in denial and pretending the incontrovertible evidence didn't happen. That isn't healthy.

The Biblical idea/theme, being contradicted by an opposing idea where the opposing idea is supported by significant evidence, and the contradicted Biblical idea/theme is one of great importance, permits the reasonable notion to question the veracity of other parts of the bible and even allow one to believe its fantastic stories are false. After all, if one calls into question the remarkable creation account of Genesis, then one could also call into question the phenomenon of God, becoming flesh, dying for humanity, and rising again from the dead.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you want to tie you trust in Christ and his death and resurrection to the belief that you couldn't possibly have got it wrong in your interpretation of Genesis. One thing I would disagree with is your portrayal of six day creationism as 'theme of great importance'. It is not. God as creator of all thing is an important theme, a 144 hour schedule is not and the six day theme was only ever repeated in Exodus, and that simply to illustrate of Sabbath observance. If we read Psalm 90 Moses himself does not take God's days literally. No one else in the bible ever brings up the subject of a six day creation.

I do not think it is such a leap to say, "Well the creation account of Genesis is most likely false, a myth. Therefore, I am skeptical about some of the other fantastic claims in the bible (i.e. miralces, such as a talking Donkey, Sea of Reeds splitting, feeding thousands with a few loafs of bread, etcetera). The reliability of the Bible can legitimately and reasonable become an issue and questioned.

Click to expand...

I am not saying the creation account is false. If you want to say that, then it is not a great leap to deny the miracles. But the bible always took a down to earth approach to miracles. The apostles would never have been convinced of the miraculous healing of a blind man who kept walking into walls or a paralytic who still fell over. Given a choice between believing in a miracle and the incontrovertible evidence the blind man still could not see, they would have gone with the evidence. We can see it in the way Peter and John rushed to the tomb to see if it was really true. If the evidence was there in front of them that Jesus was still dead in the tomb, they would not have believed in the resurrection.

Jesus did not fulfill their interpretations of what Messiah was to be. Should the disciples have stuck with their old interpretation?

Yet, I do not think it is the YEC fault someone fell away when they are exposed to evolution and the facts supporting it. We should not place the blame on them for providing their congregation with an interpretation that is reasonably supported by the text and then making correct and reasonable implications on this basis, i.e. evolution contradicts the Genesis account of creation and if you question this part then the reliability of the entire Bible is at issue. Those are reasonable positions taken by YEC.

Click to expand...

No it is the height of arrogance to think that they could not possibly be wrong, and to claim that if God's word does not work out they way they think it should it should be rejected. They are willing sacrifice children's faith in the bible to support their interpretation of a passage that makes no difference to our faith.

From this perspective, in my opinion the cause for those who fall away after being exposed to evolution and its factual foundations is not the pastor/preachers who espouse YEC and then make reasonable implications of their faith and the veracity of the bible on this basis. The cause for this segment of people to lose their faith is the contradictory account of human creation supported by a lot of evidence and the acceptance of the reasonable implications resulting from this event , as opposed to the pastors/preachers espousing YEC.

Click to expand...

How can the age of the universe God himself created make people lose their faith? How can the way God created and formed the human race make people turn away from him? Atheists like Huxley made the claim that if evolution is true then the bible is false. YEC preachers took up that claim and fed it to their congregations because it made people fear evolution and that supported their cause. If people turn away from God it is because their pastor have fed them atheist propaganda.

Moved from Christian Apologetics to Orgins

Assyrian said:

There really is a huge amount of evidence, you just don't get told about it if you stick to creationist sources.

Be careful with arguments like that, they usually stem from a misunderstanding of the subject and how it actually works. The same line of argument can be used against Christianity, if Christianity were true there would be no hospitals in America...

Click to expand...

I don't see the correlation. Hospitals were created by Christians as a way of helping people.

Actually there are a lot of nasty genetic mutations around. A friend of mine died recently of Huntington's chorea.

Click to expand...

I am sorry for your loss, but your friend was still human, not a transitional form. And if there are so many bad mutations, where are the good ones?

I have heard that claim made about hominid transitionals, in fact there are a lot more transitional forms than that that are well documented. Have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
The claim hominid transitionals would fit in a single coffin ignores the fact you can really fit a lot of skeletons in a single coffin once the flesh has decayed, more if there are just skulls or skull fragments. To have a look at that particular claim see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

A claim made about the first neanderthal skeleton found. It was quickly debunked, especially as more healthy neanderthal skeletons (well healthy for a skeleton) were found. It would be a strange bone disease that reaches back through time through older and older rock strata making the sufferers look more and more like chimps the further back and lower down in the strata you go.

For a larger image see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

Click to expand...

Quite honestly, I don't know enough about evolution to refute the pages of links that have been thrown at me, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, I will look into them when I have the time.

I know a lot of Christians who see not conflict between evolution and a literal Adam being federal head. Personally I think Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by faith and his complete work on the Cross does not depend in any way on Adam. If you look at verse 15 you will see Paul is using Adam as a figurative picture of Christ, Adam... who is the figure of him that was to come. Figurative comparisons do not need to be literal to work.

Click to expand...

I honestly can't see what you're getting from verse 15. There are many types and shadows of Christ in the OT, but those all actually happened as well as being a figurative representation. Verse 14 says "death reigned from Adam to Moses." I don't think there's a question as to whether or not Moses existed. When Paul makes that statement, he is obviously treating Adam as though he existed as well. Are you questioning Paul's interpretation of the text?

Verse 17 makes it blatantly clear that it is necessary for Adam to exist for Christ to be a federal head of humanity. "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17, NASB) It's an if-then statement, with the if being Adam's transgression, and the then being reign in Christ.

Possibly, but who are we to judge. Were the people who shipwrecked their faith in Paul's day never true believers to start with? Why didn't Paul say so? What I do know is that Christ takes a very dim view of people who cause children to stumble. Evolution does not need to be a problem for anyones faith. But if you teach you children in Sunday school that if evolution is true the bible is wrong then you are asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Evolution does present theological problems, as presented above.

The bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old, that was Ussher and his overzealous literalism. The bible does say God made Adam out of dust, but it says he made us out of clay too and neither of us thinks there is a conflict between the bible and obstetrics.

Click to expand...

If we cannot say that the events the Bible says happened actually did happen, then I don't see how we can be sure of any of it. The Bible also says that Jesus died on a cross for our sins. How are we sure that isn't a mere metaphor as well?

Epsilon5 said:

If we cannot say that the events the Bible says happened actually did happen, then I don't see how we can be sure of any of it. The Bible also says that Jesus died on a cross for our sins. How are we sure that isn't a mere metaphor as well?

Click to expand...

Logical inference. In case one, no human being saw what occurred so God had to explain His involvement in a way that the people of the time could understand, yet have that explanation remain timeless. Thus, a simplified, metaphorical view. There was no need for a detailed explanation because that's not the message that God needed to tell.

In case two, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the account, so God did not need to speak in metaphor. He could speak through the experiences of those who saw it.

It's really very easy.

crawfish said:

Logical inference. In case one, no human being saw what occurred so God had to explain His involvement in a way that the people of the time could understand,

Click to expand...

Your kidding me, right? You truly think that the people in Moses' day were unable to understand what God directed Moses to write? You think that they were all just too stupid to understand? Come on! If God used an evolutionary process to create, then I'm sure He could have said so and they would have understood it very easily... reason being, is because there were pagans all around them who believed the same basic premise as evolution. They worshipped nature, instead of the God who made nature. But the thing is, God revealed a totally different account of man's origins. They were so simple and easy to understand too. God made all things in six days, and the day following, He ceased from that work and that day was set aside as His memorial of having made everything and being pleased with it. This (the Sabbath) was given to Israel to signify their worship of the One True Creator God, and not some heathen nature idol worship.

crawfish said:

There was no need for a detailed explanation because that's not the message that God needed to tell.

Click to expand...

If God used an evolutionary process, then He wouldn't have had to have pages and pages of detailed descriptions of it either.. but could have summed it up just like evos do today... but the point is, you are the one inferring your paradigm where it does not fit, for God has made it plain how He made all things, the problem for you, is that you won't accept it. Therefore you are rejecting God's authority in place of your own philosophical god, which is a product of your own faulty reasoning.