How to deal with evolution?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have read many so-called feasibility studies and they were all written by people who lacked even a 7th grade knowledge of science, people who deliberately and willfully chose to ignore what they learned in the seventh grade, or by people who deliberately and willfully wrote to deceive their readers in order to defend their archaic, naïve, and irresponsible interpretation of Genesis 6-8.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread. The making of untrue insults has just gone too far. I won't report your post to the ops even though I should. Many of these scientists have just as much if not more education in science then you do. So stop throwing insults and look in the mirror first before making a worthless post like this one in public.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

By the way before I stop posting in this thread I better backup my claim. The book I referenced what written by a man that has a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology.

 

[JPPT1974]

Man that is a lot of degrees the author has!

 

[SteelDisciple]

I don't think you can take the various flood myths to prove that the Noah story is literally historically true. People who live near water will experience life- and even culture-threatening floods from time to time and these could have been magnified into a global flood survival story in their folklores. In other words, many local floods, none truly global.

But I'm less interested in historicity of myth than I am with what it's tryinig to say. What are some things here?

Story arc: people become extremely wicked. God destroys them. God saves a righteous remnant to repopulate the earth, and gives him advance warning and the means to do so.

What does this say about God? What does it say about us?

that man was wicked and God is good.

The Bible is the 100% truth. Anyone with the Holy Spirit can confirm it for themselves without going on blind faith.

However, science can be used as a tool to better understand God...just as viewing a painting can help you understand an artist. Science and God are not enemies.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well brother, I do respectfully disagree with you. But regarding inspiration, what do you think of these verses?

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:37-38)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)


​

Even if taken purely literally, these would seem to indicate that at least the Old Testament and the Pauline Epistles are inspired by God.

Let’s first consider 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Both of these passages were written by Paul. Should we believe him? Most Christian fundamentalists interpret Romans 7:14-25 very literally and come to the conclusion that Paul was in that passage writing about himself at the time he wrote it because it is written in the first person present tense.

Rom. 7:14. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
15. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23. but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

In verse 14 Paul says that he is “of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.” The KJV reads here, “I am carnal, sold under sin.” Many Bible scholars, including many who specialize in the study of this epistle, believe, however, that Paul is here using what is known as the “rhetorical I” much as modern westerners very frequently use the rhetorical first person plural, and that Paul is NOT writing about himself at all, but about the devout Jew living under the Law and struggling with all their might to keep the law but failing to do so because they are trusting in the Law rather than grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to save them and make them victorious over sin. The Christian fundamentalists argue that the passage must be interpreted literally and that Paul said that he is “carnal, sold under sin.”

In order to defend their view, they argue that Paul himself said that he was the chief of sinners.

1 Tim. 1:15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. (KJV)

1 Tim. 1:15. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (NASB, 1995)

In Philippians we read,

4a. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5. circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6. as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Paul writes that as a Jew under the Law he was blameless, but after his conversion to Christianity he was the foremost of all sinners! (That is, if you believe these fundamentalists). Therefore, on one side of their mouth these fundamentalists are arguing that Paul, as a Christian, was “carnal,” “sold unto sin,” and the “the foremost of all sinners!” On the other side of their mouth these fundamentalist claim that this carnal, foremost of sinners who was sold unto sin is as believable as God Himself when he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I can NOT even begin to imagine a greater contradiction!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Now let’s consider 2 Peter 3:15-16. We need to first take into consideration the fact that the very large majority of Petrine scholars today do NOT believe that this epistle was written by Peter but by a postapostolic author who, very much unlike Peter, shows a strong preference for Hellenistic terminology very strongly suggesting that he, unlike Peter, was a very Hellenized Jew.

But it is not only modern scholars who take this point of view! Indeed, we find this point of view very early. Origen (185-232) wrote that the genuineness of this epistle was questioned in his day. Eusebius (ca. 260-340) included 2 Peter in the Antilegomena rather than the New Testament Canon. Jerome (born ca. 340-2; died at Bethlehem, September 30, 420) noted the linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter but accepted both epistles as canonical. The monophysite branch of Syriac church did not recognize 2 Peter as being canonical until 508; the Nestorian branch of the Syriac Church still does not recognize 2 Peter as being canonical (their New Testament Canon includes only 22 books).

If 2 Peter was not written by Peter, how much weight should we give to what it has to says about Paul’s letters being Scripture?

Now let’s further consider 1 Corinthians 14:37-38.

34. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
36. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
37. If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
38. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

This is the only place in all of his writings in which Paul claims that he is speaking for God and he commands the women to keep silent in the churches! Need I comment further?


Now let’s further consider 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17. so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The words (in the Greek text) πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ can also be translated “Every scripture inspired by God is also . . . .” And unlike the passage discussed above in 2 Peter where in the Greek text we find the definite article making it clear that Peter is referring to the inspired word of God, we do not find the definite article, lending support to this alternative translation of 2 Timothy 3:16. But this is rather irrelevant when we consider that “inspired by God” (“God breathed”) is not at all the same as saying that God used Paul as a robot to write down His actual words. If this were the case, we would not find the individual writers of the Bible using their own personal vocabulary preferences and literary styles as is undeniably the case in 66 books of the Bible. Therefore we can NOT quote from Genesis and say, God said . . . .” The truth is that God inspired one or more authors to write the book of Genesis, probably very much like he inspired Luke to write his gospel and the book of Acts.

1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't evolution a man made claim? If I read the Bible correctly, evolution unjustifies the Bible. I was reading in an earlier post about how Genesis could be a myth or something like that. If a person is a christian and believes that mess, I as a fellow christian would be appalled at something like that. By the way Princetonguy, in a post you submitted earlier, you said that someone could believe in both evolution and the truth in which the Bible holds. My friend, to me that sounds like a two faced believer. What I mean with that is a person believes in point A, but yet they also believe in point B which contradicts the teachings of point A. Also there have been plenty of scientists through the years that have said the whole Earth was flooded at one time in history.

The theory of evolution is a theory, put forth by scientists, that is now almost universally accepted as a fact among more than 99.9% of biologists and geologists today who have earned a Ph.D. in either biology or geology. There is no conflict between what biologists and geologists teach about evolution and what the Bible teaches about creation. There is, however a very sharp and exceedingly dangerous conflict between what biologists and geologists teach about evolution and what many Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible teaches about creation because they interpret as literal that which is, in fact, a series of epic tales that God chose to have in the Bible to teach, not irrelevant historical details about His creation, but fundamental spiritual truths about Himself and His creation.

No, there were not “plenty of scientists through the years that have said the whole Earth was flooded at one time in history.” There have been several in the past, but there is not one geologist anywhere in the world today who has earned a Ph.D. and who is a professor of geology in a major university who makes such a claim, and there are ten’s of thousands of them, many of whom are Christians, who make the opposite claim.

Who should we believe—a man who earned a masters degree from a small college in the Midwest and who is now working as a clerk at Wal-Mart store or tens of thousands of scientists who have earned a Ph.D. from a major university and who are now employed by highly academic institution? Should we believe the Wal-Mart clerk because we like what he believes; or should we believe the thousands of scientists because they know what they are talking about?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

By the way before I stop posting in this thread I better backup my claim. The book I referenced what written by a man that has a BA in Biology, a BA in Geology, and an MA in Geology.

Compared with the education of the tens of thousands of biologist and geologists who believe that his claims are nothing but nonsense, his education falls far short. And, for what little it is worth, it falls far short of my own personal education as well.

I could post for you the names of many men and women with much more education than your author has who believe in all sorts of nonsense. I do not believe that it is at all difficult to distinguish between a nut case and true scientists, many of whom have earned multiple doctorates from prestigious universities, who are respected all over the world for their knowledge and contribution to science.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Note: I believe that all scientists have a moral and ethical responsibility to perform all of their research honestly and objectively, and that they have a moral and ethical responsibility to honestly and objectively analyze their data, and that they have a moral and ethical responsibility to honestly and objectively publish their data, their analysis, and their conclusions. I do not believe that being a Christian exempts any scientist from these moral and ethical responsibilities.

 

[SteelDisciple]

We should believe the Holy Spirit. Not our hopes, our theories or emotions on matters.

 

[98cwitr]

I have re-read most of this thread and I would like to chime in on the 'good scientist'/'bad scientist' debate.

Did it every occur to anyone that maybe the reason that there are no high position creationists in the scientific field is due to a choice they had to make. If you think about it, you are going to have to chose way before getting your PhD on which side you stand. Either you are going to accept what God is telling us in Gen. or you are going to believe the Earthly, and logical (yes, evolution is wholly logical...people who say "I didn’t come from a monkey!" are just being closed minded and completely egotistical).

It all bowls down to fact vs faith...and when considering eternal damnation for not accepting the latter, then most logical persons who have an inclination of spirituality and a feeling of 'there is something bigger than me out there that is completely intangible' will choice it over what is staring them in the face.

jm2c

 

[arunma]

I have re-read most of this thread and I would like to chime in on the 'good scientist'/'bad scientist' debate.

Did it every occur to anyone that maybe the reason that there are no high position creationists in the scientific field is due to a choice they had to make. If you think about it, you are going to have to chose way before getting your PhD on which side you stand. Either you are going to accept what God is telling us in Gen. or you are going to believe the Earthly, and logical (yes, evolution is wholly logical...people who say "I didn’t come from a monkey!" are just being closed minded and completely egotistical).

It all bowls down to fact vs faith...and when considering eternal damnation for not accepting the latter, then most logical persons who have an inclination of spirituality and a feeling of 'there is something bigger than me out there that is completely intangible' will choice it over what is staring them in the face.

jm2c

Well, it is also possible to use the theory of evolution in science, while ultimately rejecting it as absolute truth. For example, when I took a biology class a couple years ago, we were taught evolution (though fortunately, not once did the professor make the claim that humans evolved from other animals, we only discussed the evolution of non-humans). On the exams, there were questions about evolution. I could have written "God did it," but instead I provided the responses that the grader wanted to hear. And I do not have a bad conscience for doing so, even though I reject the theory of evolution.

Now on a larger scale, it is possible for Christian scientists to write papers on evolution, and to use the theory of evolution in their work, while believing that it is false. After all, science doesn't generally tell us very much about absolute truth. Science is a predictive tool. Saying "God did it" is a true statement, and I think it is of the utmost importance that we recognize God's sovereignty over creation, even in science. But that statement isn't useful as a predictive tool.

I respectfully propose a different reason as to why most scientists believe in evolution. A poll in Nature (a prestigious scientific journal) a few years ago showed that the vast majority of scientists are either atheists or agnostics. If I recall correctly, only 7% of scientists actually believe in a creator God. And of that 7%, I am left to wonder how many of them are Christians who believe in God's Incarnate Word. At my university, I estimate that there are around 100 fellow physics majors. I know many of them, and to my knowledge, precisely one person other than myself is an evangelical Christian.

Why is this? It seems to me that the culture of the scientific community in modern times is rather atheistic. One graduate student who works in my lab explained to me his "testimony" of how he became interested in physics. He explained that he was raised a Christian, but he questioned Christian doctrine constantly. This inquisitive nature led him to science. My guess is that it isn't really science's fault. Rather, he probably found like-minded people in the scientific community.

I don't fully understand it. Even before I was a Christian, I never questioned the existence of a creator God, and in part I thank science. Before modern cosmology, people used to believe that the universe had existed eternally; this negated the need for a Creator. But of course, growing up in the 90's, I was raised on the Big Bang theory. This theory requires the universe to have a beginning. And thus, I always understood that there must be a Beginner. Now as a Christian, I understand that the Big Bang theory is in good agreement with the Biblical claim that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I've since taken a more rigorous course in General Relativity and Cosmology. Amazingly, science is able to explain in great detail how the universe expanded after the Big Bang. Yet even the greatest cosmologists in the physics community are unable to explain the origins of the universe. As such, they shy away from such topics.

But again, the scientific community tends to be very secular. A great testament to the doctrine of original sin is that even when the average scientist can stare the Truth in the face, he will deny it. "I don't know" is a popular way for even a Ph.D to dismiss the role of God in creation, to say nothing of Jesus Christ, who is the Voice by which the creation came into being.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Well, it is also possible to use the theory of evolution in science, while ultimately rejecting it as absolute truth. For example, when I took a biology class a couple years ago, we were taught evolution (though fortunately, not once did the professor make the claim that humans evolved from other animals, we only discussed the evolution of non-humans). On the exams, there were questions about evolution. I could have written "God did it," but instead I provided the responses that the grader wanted to hear. And I do not have a bad conscience for doing so, even though I reject the theory of evolution.

Now on a larger scale, it is possible for Christian scientists to write papers on evolution, and to use the theory of evolution in their work, while believing that it is false. After all, science doesn't generally tell us very much about absolute truth. Science is a predictive tool. Saying "God did it" is a true statement, and I think it is of the utmost importance that we recognize God's sovereignty over creation, even in science. But that statement isn't useful as a predictive tool.

I respectfully propose a different reason as to why most scientists believe in evolution. A poll in Nature (a prestigious scientific journal) a few years ago showed that the vast majority of scientists are either atheists or agnostics. If I recall correctly, only 7% of scientists actually believe in a creator God. And of that 7%, I am left to wonder how many of them are Christians who believe in God's Incarnate Word. At my university, I estimate that there are around 100 fellow physics majors. I know many of them, and to my knowledge, precisely one person other than myself is an evangelical Christian.

Why is this? It seems to me that the culture of the scientific community in modern times is rather atheistic. One graduate student who works in my lab explained to me his "testimony" of how he became interested in physics. He explained that he was raised a Christian, but he questioned Christian doctrine constantly. This inquisitive nature led him to science. My guess is that it isn't really science's fault. Rather, he probably found like-minded people in the scientific community.

I don't fully understand it. Even before I was a Christian, I never questioned the existence of a creator God, and in part I thank science. Before modern cosmology, people used to believe that the universe had existed eternally; this negated the need for a Creator. But of course, growing up in the 90's, I was raised on the Big Bang theory. This theory requires the universe to have a beginning. And thus, I always understood that there must be a Beginner. Now as a Christian, I understand that the Big Bang theory is in good agreement with the Biblical claim that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I've since taken a more rigorous course in General Relativity and Cosmology. Amazingly, science is able to explain in great detail how the universe expanded after the Big Bang. Yet even the greatest cosmologists in the physics community are unable to explain the origins of the universe. As such, they shy away from such topics.

But again, the scientific community tends to be very secular. A great testament to the doctrine of original sin is that even when the average scientist can stare the Truth in the face, he will deny it. "I don't know" is a popular way for even a Ph.D to dismiss the role of God in creation, to say nothing of Jesus Christ, who is the Voice by which the creation came into being.

Prior to the publication of Darwin’s observations and conclusions, most scientists were Christians. That changed very rapidly when the scientific community saw the reaction of the evangelical community to undeniable facts. And when the evangelical community began to vigorously castigate the scientists for believing the undeniable facts regarding natural selection and evolution, their reaction was to separate themselves from the evangelical churches. In time, that was not enough and most of them found it necessary to separate themselves from the church altogether. I am loved by the members of my church, but if they were to learn of my views of science, I would no longer be welcome.

As I have posted in previous posts in this thread, young earth creationism is today the greatest threat against the evangelical church and the Christian faith. This very day I received the following personal message from another member of Christian Forums,

Hi! I have blessed you with 500 Blessings. Even though I am NOT a Christian I am impressed with your views of Genisis and agree that a literal interpretation will, in fact, keep many educated people from Christianity. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Young earth creationism is based upon profound ignorance of both science and the Bible, and it is being propagated through the means of deliberate and willful misrepresentations of the facts by pseudo-Christian organizations whose sole and exclusive purpose is to defend at all cost their archaic, naïve, and irresponsible interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that has repeatedly been proven to be false, insidious, and ultimately deadly. The message of Young earth creationism is directly responsible for millions of people abandoning or never accepting the Christian faith because it makes the Christian faith appear to be the faith of intellectually challenged baboons in the late stages of dementia. Christians need to preach, teach, and live the gospel and let scientists be scientists.

I appeal to everyone reading this thread to honestly and earnestly pray every day and ask God to teach them the truth and to protect them from all wrong interpretations and beliefs.

 

[gwilenius]

I have read many so-called feasibility studies and they were all written by people who lacked even a 7th grade knowledge of science, people who deliberately and willfully chose to ignore what they learned in the seventh grade, or by people who deliberately and willfully wrote to deceive their readers in order to defend their archaic, naïve, and irresponsible interpretation of Genesis 6-8.

The site for which you provided a link makes a horribly irresponsible mockery of Bible, Biblical hermeneutics, the Christian faith, basic science, and the man that God created in His own image—therefore making a mockery of God Himself! Filling in the “gaps” in Genesis 6-8 with thousands upon thousands of totally imaginary miracles that diametrically contradict the laws of nature that God Himself set into place rather than fill in the “gaps” with millions of pages of irrefutable scientific data and the basic common given to us by God is most certainly the travesty of travesties! Most certainly those persons who use the internet to deliberately and willfully propagate such distortions of the reality God’s creation shall answer to God for their sin!

I can not possibly express in words how very important it is for each and every Christian believer to, everyday, earnestly and honestly beseech God to teach him His truths and to protect him from error of all kinds.

Bear in mind that God violated natural laws numerous times. Lazarus was resurrected after being dead for a number of days - rot and decay were reversed. Jesus was transfigured before death and resurrected after death. A donkey talked to Baalam. Samson had unnatural strength. There are countless healings and resurrections. Phillip was "teleported." An axehead floated, the sun was stopped and even reversed, water was changed to wine, etc. etc. God certainly could have created peace among the animals so they would not eat each other; just as the Hebrews were sustained on mana, the animals could have been sustained likewise on little food. I will say, however, there is plenty of room for speculation. But just becasue the flood goes against scientific principles by no means indicates it didn't happen. keep science in the realm of nature, and out of the spiritual; it has no place with the things of God - when it comes to the supernatural, science fails. BTW, I am a chemist and have studied theoretical physics in detail, and have a little more than a seventh grade science background. I just know where science stops and God steps in - where is it written that God must obey the natural laws He set in place?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Bear in mind that God violated natural laws numerous times. Lazarus was resurrected after being dead for a number of days - rot and decay were reversed. Jesus was transfigured before death and resurrected after death. A donkey talked to Baalam. Samson had unnatural strength. There are countless healings and resurrections. Phillip was "teleported." An axehead floated, the sun was stopped and even reversed, water was changed to wine, etc. etc. God certainly could have created peace among the animals so they would not eat each other; just as the Hebrews were sustained on mana, the animals could have been sustained likewise on little food. I will say, however, there is plenty of room for speculation. But just becasue the flood goes against scientific principles by no means indicates it didn't happen. keep science in the realm of nature, and out of the spiritual; it has no place with the things of God - when it comes to the supernatural, science fails. BTW, I am a chemist and have studied theoretical physics in detail, and have a little more than a seventh grade science background. I just know where science stops and God steps in - where is it written that God must obey the natural laws He set in place?

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Genesis 6-8, interpreted literally as an historic narrative, does NOT describe “God in action performing miracles.” It describes Noah and his family in action building an ark to save the animals that God could have, BUT DID NOT, save by performing miracles. There are no miracles mentioned in Genesis 6-8 and to read them into this narrative is to refute the very point of the narrative!

 

[Dmckay]

1 Crrinthians 1:21For when the world with all its earthly wisdom failed to perceive and recognize and know God by means of its own philosophy, God in His wisdom was pleased through the foolishness of preaching [salvation, procured by Christ and to be had through Him], to save those who believed (who clung to and trusted in and relied on Him).

 

[Dmckay]

1 Corinthians 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS"; 20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."

 

[arunma]

PrincetonGuy, have you studied the old earth creation theory? I think a literal reading of the text shows that the flood was a local event which only affected the middle east (and presumably, the whole of the human population would have lived there at the time). This eliminates most of the difficulties, since we are no longer required to believe that every animal in the entire world was carried aboard the ark. It also explains how vegetation appeared so quickly after the flood.

 

[Joykins]

Well, it is also possible to use the theory of evolution in science, while ultimately rejecting it as absolute truth. For example, when I took a biology class a couple years ago, we were taught evolution (though fortunately, not once did the professor make the claim that humans evolved from other animals, we only discussed the evolution of non-humans). On the exams, there were questions about evolution. I could have written "God did it," but instead I provided the responses that the grader wanted to hear. And I do not have a bad conscience for doing so, even though I reject the theory of evolution.

Now on a larger scale, it is possible for Christian scientists to write papers on evolution, and to use the theory of evolution in their work, while believing that it is false. After all, science doesn't generally tell us very much about absolute truth. Science is a predictive tool. Saying "God did it" is a true statement, and I think it is of the utmost importance that we recognize God's sovereignty over creation, even in science. But that statement isn't useful as a predictive tool.

You might find this interesting: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

 

[catch21wide]

Princetonguy, I know we have different views on evolution. I will say however that when the Lord Jesus comes again, we will know once and for all that the Bible is true and evolution was founded by a non-believing man. Granted, those scientists have Ph. D's, but if they are christians and believe in evolution, I believe them to be liberals. I will never be as smart as those men are, but I will forever believe that the Bible is inspired by God and when Jesus comes again everyone will know it. The only way evolution will become fact is if Jesus himself says it is. I don't believe that will happen. I don't care what scientists say because there is only one true scientist and that is the Lord God Almighty.