Bible-Creation-Evolution

[1611AV]

Ah, but if a man uses a saw to cut a piece of wood, don't we say that the man cut the wood? We don't say, "The man caused to saw to cut the wood."

it is perfectly reasonable to say, "X did such-a-thing" even if we mean, "X used a tool to produce a particular outcome."

Doesn't matter if X is a man and the tool is a saw and the outcome is a cut piece of wood, or if X is God, the tool is evolution by natural selection and the outcome is life.

So, biblically, when it says that the Earth brought forth the grasses and the tree and all the other plants, I choose to take that as meaning that God set into motion the process of biological evolution and he used that as a tool (if I had to take the Bible as an accurate account, that is).

And I don't see how you can say otherwise. After all, the King James Bible is perfectly capable of stating when God is making something himself, as it does in Genesis 1:16 when it says that God himself made the two lights.

Now, shouldn't you read that and ask why it describes the creation of living things one way, and the creation of non-living things another way? There must be a reason, yes? Maybe because the Bible is trying to tell you that God created the non-living things directly, and yet created the living things using a process.

I think this satisfies amply your request for a Biblical justification for evolution.

And I don't see how you can say otherwise. After all, the King James Bible is perfectly capable of stating when God is making something himself, as it does in Genesis 1:16 when it says that God himself made the two lights.

As long as your satisfied, thats all that matters. But please dont misquote the Word of God as read in the King James Bible as reads Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Its always God!

 

[mzungu]

Science does not accept Jesus as creator of all things without the use of evolution.

Ive never read a science book in all my years of schooling that ever mentioned the name of Jesus. So yeah, It may just be a giant conspiracy.

How many times must it be pointed out to you that ToE does not explain how life came to be. All it does is explain how life evolves. ToE is the most peer reviewed and scrutinised scientific theory and has passed unscathed. Biology makes no sense without ToE. Medicine makes no sense without biology. All the above make no sense without the science of Chemistry. Chemistry makes no sense without the Atomic theory and Atomic theory makes no sense without particle physics.

Now since all the above fields of science have produced working results and have predicted many things then it is up to you to prove your creationist idea as one that refutes science.

The bible does not mention dinosaurs, the space shuttle, Uranus, Pluto, Crab nebula, and millions of other discoveries ad infinitum.

Creationism is nothing more than a myth that dates back to ancient Sumerian creation myths.

Really now! Why don't you just stick to the spiritual side of religion and leave science to do what it does best: Give answers and make things work!

 

[1611AV]

How many times must it be pointed out to you that ToE does not explain how life came to be. All it does is explain how life evolves. ToE is the most peer reviewed and scrutinised scientific theory and has passed unscathed. Biology makes no sense without ToE. Medicine makes no sense without biology. All the above make no sense without the science of Chemistry. Chemistry makes no sense without the Atomic theory and Atomic theory makes no sense without particle physics.

Now since all the above fields of science have produced working results and have predicted many things then it is up to you to prove your creationist idea as one that refutes science.

The bible does not mention dinosaurs, the space shuttle, Uranus, Pluto, Crab nebula, and millions of other discoveries ad infinitum.

Creationism is nothing more than a myth that dates back to ancient Sumerian creation myths.

Really now! Why don't you just stick to the spiritual side of religion and leave science to do what it does best: Give answers and make things work!

The thread is Bible-Creation-Evolution. Which is the Bible speaking of? It speaks of direct creation and nothing else.

Your argument is a deflection and off topic, but since you will that I stick to spiritual things I will leave you with a word of the Lord.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

 

[driewerf]

Science is strictly what we can observe, test and repeat - as any science dictionary will tell you.
.

O really? How do you test earthquakes? Or is the science of geophysics a religion too?
How do you test sun flares? How do you repeat craters on the moon?

 

[driewerf]

Creationists don't claim creationism is scientific.

Let the creationists speak:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

Center for Scientific Creation

Creation Science Movement - Home page

The Creation Science Movement is the oldest creationist movement in the world; founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement by leading members of the Victoria Institute who were concerned at the scientific, ethical and theological consequences that belief in Evolution brings to society.

Discover ICR

For four decades, the Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.

Creation Science Evangelism

Creation Science Evangelism began in 1989 from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God's creation.
Today, Creation Science Evangelism has some of the most requested resources on the topics of creation, evolution, and dinosaurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

O really? How do you test earthquakes? Or is the science of geophysics a religion too?
How do you test sun flares? How do you repeat craters on the moon?

You don't -- you reduce the data down to computer software, then program the computer to 404 everytime something contradictory -- (like a miracle) -- threatens it.

(I know -- you technically don't program computers to 404 -- )

 

[sandwiches]

You don't -- you reduce the data down to computer software, then program the computer to 404 everytime something contradictory -- (like a miracle) -- threatens it.

(I know -- you technically don't program computers to 404 -- )

I understand the individual words of your post, but that's about it.

 

[driewerf]

It speaks of it, but does it mean it? The Bible speaks of good Samaratans, but the point isn't whether those specific individuals actually exist. Perhaps the same is true with Genesis; perhaps God's point isn't to dictate a literal account of history, but to describe the overarching narrative of his relationship with man and the world.
Perhaps "In the beginning..." is the same as saying "Once upon a time..." - it doesn't dictate an absolute beginning 6000 years ago, but is merely setting the scene. Perhaps Adam and Eve are figureheads for man and woman, for humanity in general, rather than two literal people.

So the Bible speaks of Creation, but how do you know it's trying to get across a literal account, rather than a metaphorical account? After all, both would begin with "In the beginning..."

There is an alternative to it too. What if god adapted his message to humanity's maturity.

Let me explain with a secular example: little children and babies.
Consider some little child - say a seven years old - that asks were babies come from. Will you explain the complete and detailed human sexuality? I don't think so. You will remain very vague. But when children go into puberty, you will be much more specific - if just to avoid that they start making babies themselves.

Now, consider god that wrote Genesis. An imature humanity was better served with a simplified explanation about the origins. With humanity maturing and exploring the world it discovered the real world, and undertood the origins of species at a moment it was able to understand it.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually, so much for the earth being responsible for the evolution of plants since God had already created them before he placed them in the Earth.

He only commanded the Earth to bring forth the plants he already created. Kinda like when we plant a seed, the Earth doesn't create the seed, it brings the plant or seed forth.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

Goodness the wonders you can glean from the AV, the pre-existence of plants!!! Don't see how that helps you, you still have plants arriving on earth after God creates Adam instead of three days before.

But Coverdale did a better job translating the verse than the AV though. Gen 2:5 before there was eny twygg vpon earth, and or euer there grew eny grene herbe vpon the felde. For the LORDE God had yet sent no rayne vpon ye earth, nether was there eny man to tylle the earth (Coverdale Bible 1535). Not sure whether it is us misunderstanding the AV's archaic English or simply a mistranslation on the AV committees part. Whatever the reason I don't buy into the infallibility of King James' translation committee.

 

[driewerf]

you reduce the data

Really? And what is oxydized then? Because you can't have reduction without oxydation.

 

[1611AV]

Goodness the wonders you can glean from the AV, the pre-existence of plants!!! Don't see how that helps you, you still have plants arriving on earth after God creates Adam instead of three days before.

Easy, it discounts evolution of plants. Biblically speaking.

 

[mzungu]

I understand the individual words of your post, but that's about it.

I only understood the wink!

 

[mzungu]

Easy, it discounts evolution of plants. Biblically speaking.

I searched, I searched, But I couldn't find, no place in the Bible that says such a lie.....

 

[1611AV]

I searched, I searched, But I couldn't find, no place in the Bible that says such a lie.....

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Then why is teen pregnancy higher within religious groups?

 

[super animator]

Then why is teen pregnancy higher within religious groups?

I don't see how this relates to his post anyway but ok.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I don't see how this relates to his post anyway but ok.

If you've followed his posts, you'd also notice that his response was also non-sequitur. So I was just replying in kind.

 

[1611AV]

Then why is teen pregnancy higher within religious groups?

Religious does not = Christian.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Religious does not = Christian.

Teen pregnancy rates are still the highest in religious states.

 

[pgp_protector]

Teen pregnancy rates are still the highest in religious states.

but I think they're saying it's not higher amongst True Christians[sup]tm[/sup]