Evolution

[NightHawkeye]

Science discovers facts, which could be evil or not evil.
Evolution is a theory. It could be (i.e. is) 100% evil.

OK. Since you claim the theory of evolution is 100% evil, I'm sure that you must have some credible evidence to substantiate the claim. Would you mind presenting that so that others can examine it. (Hint: That the theory may upset your interpretation of Genesis or creation doesn't count.)


.

 

[Assyrian]

No, God doesn't resemble mud nor does He have the appearance of an ape. To construct something you must use materials in order to build the image you strive to achieve....do you consider the image to be the lumber, nails and dry wall or....the finished home?

The finished home, which is my point. Evolution does not mean God resembled an ape, it us human beings he calls his image and likeness.

Yes it does and how did that happen? Because it was "created" that way from the beginning....it did not evolve.
.

God is creator whether he used mud or evolution.

 

[Jase]

Science discovers facts, which could be evil or not evil.
Evolution is a theory. It could be (i.e. is) 100% evil.

Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories. Are they 100% evil, especially considering they have less evidentiary support than evolution?

 

[Jase]

No, God doesn't resemble mud nor does He have the appearance of an ape. To construct something you must use materials in order to build the image you strive to achieve....do you consider the image to be the lumber, nails and dry wall or....the finished home?




.

I hate to break it to you, but being made in the image of God, has absolutely nothing to do with our physical appearance. It refers to our unique ability to reason and use logic. God is not a physical entity, so Genesis was most certainly making no referrence to looks.

 

[1whirlwind]

Creationists have to skew the order of either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 because the two chapters describe creation taking place on a completely different order.

There is skewing and then there is understanding. There are two chapters of creation because they speak of two different things. In the first chapter is the creation of mankind, all races. In the second chapter is the formation of Adam, the specific man from whom Christ would come. The Bible is about His family and it begins in chapter two.

What genealogy? Matthew 1 only goes back to Abraham while Luke 3 is not even Jesus' genealogy, it is what people supposed his genealogy was. Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat...

Yes, Luke shows the geneaology of Joseph, step-father to Christ, who was descended from king David. But, in that genealogy we are also shown the lineage of Abraham from Adam and from Abraham to David. Then in Matthew we can go from David to Christ.

His genealogy is given.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.
Look at the reason no plant had grown, the ground was dry and there wasn't a man to work the ground. How does this fit the creation of plants on day three which grew without a man being created for another three days? In Genesis 1, it wasn't that plants hadn't grown because there was no rain, the ground had been deep underwater that very morning and the reason plants did not grow between God creating the land in Gen 1:9 and plants in Gen 1:11 is that there weren't any seeds and there wasn't enough time anyway. Not as we read in Genesis 2, that there hadn't been rain and there was no gardener.

The creation of the world by our Father, I believe, must be understood in His reckoning of time.....

11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

Before Adam was God's time...after the formation of Adam is man's time.


The "rain" and "man to till the ground" has a much deeper meaning but...at face value you're right....there was no rain. However, He explains that before the rain....

Genesis 2:5-6 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. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
​

But an even bigger problem is when God created beasts and birds. In Genesis 1 the birds are created on day 5 and the beasts on day 6 before God created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man first, then the beasts and the birds, and then God makes the woman.

Genesis 1: plants, birds, beasts, then man and woman
Genesis 2: man, plants, beasts and birds, then woman

There are beasts and then...there are beasts. Some animal, some human.

Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
​

That doesn't refer to animals, at least...not animals such as lions, tigers and bears.

Consider too that on one level Adam was formed to till the ground. The first men were to subdue the earth and had dominion over all creatures. But, with Adam, who was to farm....

Genesis 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
​

Does this refer to domestic animals, those used to farm....oxen, horses, poultry, cows, goats, etc.?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

The finished home, which is my point. Evolution does not mean God resembled an ape, it us human beings he calls his image and likeness.


God is creator whether he used mud or evolution.

You have a good point. I don't see it that way but still appreciate the thought.


As all things are "created after his kind," then all things cannot evolve one into another creation. They/we were created to be what we are.


.

 

[crawfish]

The creation of the world by our Father, I believe, must be understood in His reckoning of time.....

11 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
​

Before Adam was God's time...after the formation of Adam is man's time.


The "rain" and "man to till the ground" has a much deeper meaning but...at face value you're right....there was no rain. However, He explains that before the rain....

Genesis 2:5-6 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. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
​

There are beasts and then...there are beasts. Some animal, some human.

Jonah 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
​

That doesn't refer to animals, at least...not animals such as lions, tigers and bears.

Consider too that on one level Adam was formed to till the ground. The first men were to subdue the earth and had dominion over all creatures. But, with Adam, who was to farm....

Genesis 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
​

Does this refer to domestic animals, those used to farm....oxen, horses, poultry, cows, goats, etc.?


.

So, in other words, we take Genesis 1 completely literally and Genesis 2 figuratively where it conflicts?

 

[1whirlwind]

Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories. Are they 100% evil, especially considering they have less evidentiary support than evolution?

Do they, in any way, contradict His Word?


.

 

[crawfish]

Do they, in any way, contradict His Word?


.

Meteorology does.

Job 36:32 - He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.

Job 37:11 - He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.

Job 30:22 - Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail

Evil secular meteorologists would have you believe that weather is a natural, random phenomenon, but the bible tells us differently.

 

[1whirlwind]

I hate to break it to you, but being made in the image of God, has absolutely nothing to do with our physical appearance. It refers to our unique ability to reason and use logic. God is not a physical entity, so Genesis was most certainly making no referrence to looks.

Was Jesus a "physical entity?"


John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?


.

 

[1whirlwind]

So, in other words, we take Genesis 1 completely literally and Genesis 2 figuratively where it conflicts?

Not at all. You can, or should, understand both on both levels. There is no conflict only misunderstanding.


.

 

[crawfish]

Not at all. You can, or should, understand both on both levels. There is no conflict only misunderstanding.


.

So, if we are to understand both on both levels, then how are we to determine what must be 100% literal - such as 7 days - and what is figurative?

As a EC (evolutionary creationist), I've had to come to terms with this question, and develop rules for determining when and if I can read a piece of scripture figuratively. I have yet to hear from a YEC/OEC who has developed a similar set of rules. The best I've heard is, "it's obvious", but many times I struggle to see why what they claim is so obvious.

In the end, I think a decision is made - such as YEC - and then scripture is made "obvious" because, with that assumption, other options are limited or untenable. That seems to be dangerous theology to me because if the original assumption is wrong then the entire interpretation is probably wrong.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, Luke shows the geneaology of Joseph, step-father to Christ, who was descended from king David. But, in that genealogy we are also shown the lineage of Abraham from Adam and from Abraham to David. Then in Matthew we can go from David to Christ.

His genealogy is given.

Well, two different accounts of his genealogy are given anyway.

 

[1whirlwind]

Thank you for clarifying that, Whirlwind. Now that we know you're not anti-science, let's go on to your next issue in the statement above.

Evolution from ape to man ... You speak in an absolute sense here, yet seem to be ignoring the results of science. The methods of science have revealed that men and other primates share substantially similar genetics. I seem to recall something like 98% commonality with chimpanzees (but I'm just working from memory on that so the exact number may be slightly different). At any rate, our physical bodies share a great deal in common with other primates. This genetic similarity allows certain diseases to cross between men and some primates.

I do speak in an absolute sense for it is to be understood as such. Mankind is given, from the beginning, dominion over animals...we are not ONE OF the animals. Having commonality with chimps doesn't make us related. I know some with the personality of asps but...they aren't asps. I know some that resemble dogs but...they aren't dogs. Because diseases cross doesn't make us the same.

We also know with absolute certainty that genetic material can be altered and that such alteration occurs naturally as part of God's natural laws. Men have also altered genetic material for specific purposes, such as herding sheep. Are you familiar with Shetland sheepdogs or Border collies? Both these dogs were bred by man specifically for working sheep.

So, in many ways the theory of evolution has been proven. Granted there are still many unknowns. Any legitimate geneticist would admit as much. That's true of all science, by the way. Every aspect of every discipline is open to question.

Yes dogs are bred for certain jobs and there is a huge variety of dogs. But, do they become cats?

As with the Bible, you can expect people to argue their favorite theories, but evidence is what carries the argument. Sure, there are bad apples, as evidenced by "global warming", but ultimately the "fakers" are relegated to the trash heap, as happened with the global warming hoax.

And, what is the Biblical evidence for any form of evolution. There are many things I don't yet understand but for this to be true there has to be some evidence given in His Word that clarifies what is written in Genesis. Where is it?

You seem to have an issue with anyone who says man evolved from apes. I'm not sure why that should cause you, or anyone else here, consternation. I seem to recall a discussion here not very long ago where it was determined that the word "beast", as used in the Bible, was clearly referring to individuals in human bodies who were not considered to be men. The mere fact that the Bible describes beasts in human bodies might be a clue.

It causes consternation as it is a lie. The word beast didn't apply to animals but to men. The Bible isn't saying humans are, or ever were, literal animals.

On much we agree (but we already knew that, didn't we?) Even on this board it is a rare thread where someone doesn't claim their interpretation of some aspect of the Bible to be absolute truth, causing numerous readers to then scratch their heads and wonder, huh?

Oh well ... God has not granted any of us to know all things. (At least that's been my experience, so far.) We are each very limited in our ability and understanding. I certainly can't speak for you, but my God-given mathematical abilities, which in my youth I thought were good, are so limited that I can't compete against a $2.00 calculator either in accuracy or computational speed.

Jesus had to speak in parables because men wouldn't understand otherwise. The parables allowed them to understand bits and pieces more clearly, even though it wasn't granted them that they should understand all things.



LOL. My apologies if I misunderstood. I thought you were vilifying evolution.

OK. So you are vilifying evolution? I'm confused?

I said I didn't vilify science...I made no mention of evolution.


You made the accusation of......"TRUTH is on God's side. Questioning is on God's side. Vilifying others is on the Devil's side. Many of those you would vilify are actually on your side." To which I answered...."Those I vilify? Who are they? Where did I vilify them?"

In other words, I did NOT vilify any person. Unless evolution has suddenly become an "other" of one of "those."

The great apes, as I understand it, have a generally much more pleasant disposition than men do. :o

That is quite true.

WW - Evolution is anti-Bible unless the things He created weren't created "after his kind."

Nah. It's more like evolution just punched one of your buttons. Or, more likely, the buttons of somebody in your church. Evolution, per se, is no more evil than a thousand other things I could list for you which are not considered evil.

Things like leading into captivity, killing, and lieing are evil. Evolution is simply an attempt to search for truth -- possibly errant -- but not wantonly contrary to God or God's laws.

You would be mistaken...on three counts. No one pushed a button, it is contrary to His Word and because it is....if you see lying as evil, as do I, then...

Well good. Again, we agree.

 

[1whirlwind]

Meteorology does.

Job 36:32 - He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.

Job 37:11 - He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.

Job 30:22 - Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail

Evil secular meteorologists would have you believe that weather is a natural, random phenomenon, but the bible tells us differently.

Perhaps it would help you to study exactly what is meant by Biblical "clouds, lightning and hail." Or, continue to see the letter.

11 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.



.
​

 

[1whirlwind]

So, if we are to understand both on both levels, then how are we to determine what must be 100% literal - such as 7 days - and what is figurative?

In His Word we find what the Lord terms a day. There is no need to speculate.

As a EC (evolutionary creationist), I've had to come to terms with this question, and develop rules for determining when and if I can read a piece of scripture figuratively. I have yet to hear from a YEC/OEC who has developed a similar set of rules. The best I've heard is, "it's obvious", but many times I struggle to see why what they claim is so obvious.

In the end, I think a decision is made - such as YEC - and then scripture is made "obvious" because, with that assumption, other options are limited or untenable. That seems to be dangerous theology to me because if the original assumption is wrong then the entire interpretation is probably wrong.

He guides us into understanding the written Word.


.

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

Originally Posted by Jase

Gravity, germs, and atoms are also theories. Are they 100% evil, especially considering they have less evidentiary support than evolution?
​

Do they, in any way, contradict His Word?

Well, crawfish correctly pointed out that meterology does. Germ theory certainly does as well, as diseases in the Bible are described (including by Jesus himself) as being caused by evil spirits, and germs are never described in the Bible. Not to mention that clearly evil heliocentric theory.

Papias

 

[1whirlwind]

Well, two different accounts of his genealogy are given anyway.

One is that of his step-father Joseph. The other is of Mary.


.

 

[Papias]

WW wrote:

One is that of his step-father Joseph. The other is of Mary.

I had to know that was coming. Please cite the verse that says that one is from Mary? It seems that creationists again show that they have no problem changing the Bible as they see fit.

It is also worth pointing out that there are not just two contradictory geneologies given, but three (see 1Chr. 3).

Papias