If evolution is not true, what was the process of creation?

[dms1972]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

 

[drjean]

I think it's been proven, and I believe it, that you have to have more faith to be an evolutionist than to believe a Supreme Being created it all. If one really, truly studies the "facts" of evolution, not just reading the promoters of it, but all the scientific data shown to be absent, you'll realize this. Faith is key, but what we put our faith in is even more key!

God spoke things into creation.... and when He used a different method, like taking a rib from the male adam to make the female adam, He told us. The concept that God creates by speaking is supported also by the verse that God cannot lie. Indeed, if what He says occurs, then it's all truly real and not false.

What is missing in our biology of things is the step process. Too many "things" have to go together at the same time for life, thus supporting the all at once spoken into existence concept.

It is not difficult for me to have faith to wrap my mind around the idea of a Supreme Being creating... but now to take my pea brain and ask me to figure out the how of the very Existence of that Supreme Being..whoa!

 

[dreadnought]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

The Lord created science. Science is a useful tool. But that's all it is.

 

[dms1972]

That doesn't really answer my question. Science or rather the sciences are human attempts to understand creation in various aspects, physical laws, its chemistry etc. So if something exists it can be explored in some respects. Things (planets, animals, humans etc) exist, So if all sorts of evolution are false, some other mode of creation must have been involved. I am asking if anyone has a theory of what that might be?

 

[MoneyGuy]

I think it's been proven, and I believe it, that you have to have more faith to be an evolutionist than to believe a Supreme Being created it all.

Coming from a believer who also believes evolution is fact, I disagree. If one didn't believe in God the idea of a supreme creator would be crazy ridiculous and would require more faith, I'd say, than a theist believing in evolution.

 

[dms1972]

I think it's been proven, and I believe it, that you have to have more faith to be an evolutionist than to believe a Supreme Being created it all. If one really, truly studies the "facts" of evolution, not just reading the promoters of it, but all the scientific data shown to be absent, you'll realize this. Faith is key, but what we put our faith in is even more key!

God spoke things into creation.... and when He used a different method, like taking a rib from the male adam to make the female adam, He told us. The concept that God creates by speaking is supported also by the verse that God cannot lie. Indeed, if what He says occurs, then it's all truly real and not false.

What is missing in our biology of things is the step process. Too many "things" have to go together at the same time for life, thus supporting the all at once spoken into existence concept.

It is not difficult for me to have faith to wrap my mind around the idea of a Supreme Being creating... but now to take my pea brain and ask me to figure out the how of the very Existence of that Supreme Being..whoa!

Well some say faith in God is a gift. But if we are talking about science should one not only believe evolution if the evidence is good enough? If there are gaps in fossil records and lack of transitional stages...should we still hold on to it by faith, or look for a different theory? Darwinianism suggested that if it was true we would find lots of transitional fossils did it not? We don't seem to have. There are other theories of evolution of course such as punctuated equibilrium.

I am not questioning whether God spoke, what I am trying to work out is what happened in space and time when he spoke, if it wasn't an evolutionary process?

 

[dreadnought]

That doesn't really answer my question. Science or rather the sciences are human attempts to understand creation in various aspects, physical laws, its chemistry etc. So if something exists that can be explored in some respects. Things (planets, animals, humans etc) exist, So if all sorts of evolution are false, some other mode of creation must have being involved. I am asking if anyone has a theory of what that might be?

But you are speaking as if the Lord sets a group of scientific principles into effect, and then never changes them. I am suggesting he creates things piecemeal. Therefore, evolution can explain some of the changes that have taken place, but not all.

 

[drjean]

That's just it the "evidence" upon which evolution is based does not exist. Have you honestly studied the "links" that the godless scientists have made and connected, and do you receive the updates when further research (due to increasingly more accurate test mechanisms) proves another part of the hypothesis wrong? I doubt it.... they don't widely publish it. And do the scientists that used to believe and promote evolution, who intent upon disproving creationism, find God and renounce evolution...do their testimonies have no weight and validity?

You cannot believe in evolution AND in the validity of the Bible as God's Word i.e. Creation as God says it was. Either God created or somehow from nothing stuff created itself. The timepiece in the forest has yet to make itself, as scientists suspect. Darwin himself said that if at any time something was found that could not create and exist on it's own until something else added on, then his whole idea would be false. Modern science has found some things like that.

I'm not saying you aren't going to heaven over this, but if I tried to go that way I would wonder upon what I could base my salvation.

 

[dms1972]

But you are speaking as if the Lord sets a group of scientific principles into effect, and then never changes them. I am suggesting he creates things piecemeal. Therefore, evolution can explain some of the changes that have taken place, but not all.

Maybe we are not understanding each other, and maybe thats because I haven't made myself clear enough.

What I mean is if one could have been there as an observer, what would one have seen, when the first fish was coming into existence? There are fish so something took place - and if its not evolutionary what way might it be described?

What did you mean when you said God created science?

What do you mean when you say 'he creates things peacemeal'?.


What changes can evolution not explain?

 

[dms1972]

That's just it the "evidence" upon which evolution is based does not exist. Have you honestly studied the "links" that the godless scientists have made and connected, and do you receive the updates when further research (due to increasingly more accurate test mechanisms) proves another part of the hypothesis wrong? I doubt it.... they don't widely publish it. And do the scientists that used to believe and promote evolution, who intent upon disproving creationism, find God and renounce evolution...do their testimonies have no weight and validity?

You cannot believe in evolution AND in the validity of the Bible as God's Word i.e. Creation as God says it was. Either God created or somehow from nothing stuff created itself. The timepiece in the forest has yet to make itself, as scientists suspect. Darwin himself said that if at any time something was found that could not create and exist on it's own until something else added on, then his whole idea would be false. Modern science has found some things like that.

I'm not saying you aren't going to heaven over this, but if I tried to go that way I would wonder upon what I could base my salvation.

It would seem there are people who think one can believe in a God-guided evolution. Not sure at what stage those who do say it all started. Not sure when they call themselves theistic evolutionists whether they accept God and darwinianism, or what exactly?

I believe that there were distant ancestors of all the species we see today. So there was a distant ancestor of modern finches, but it was morphologically a bird too, it wasn't something very different from a bird. Was that first finch directly created by God. If it wasn't then there must be a pre-finch stage, and then something before that....

I kind of see now i have asked that its like inquiring into the actual act of creation. Its asking about how the creative word God spoke brings stuff into existence.

 

[dreadnought]

Maybe we are not understanding each other, and maybe thats because I haven't made myself clear enough.

What I mean is if one could have been there as an observer, what would one have seen, when the first fish was coming into existence? There are fish so something took place - and if its not evolutionary what way might it be described?

What did you mean when you said God created science?

What do you mean when you say 'he creates things peacemeal'?.


What changes can evolution not explain?

I am no expert in science, but wasn't there a "missing link"?

God created science, as opposed to science created God, or opposed to God being controlled by scientific principles. If God wants to move a mountain, he can, even though it contradicts scientific principles. He can create things piecemeal - that is, he can break scientific laws to bring about his will.

Keep in mind that the Lord could have created a world seven thousand years ago that scientifically appeared to be billions of years old.

 

[dms1972]

Do you take 'moving mountains' literally?

 

[dreadnought]

Do you take 'moving mountains' literally?

Yes, the Lord will physically move a mountain, if need be. That was his point. He can also move figurative mountains.

 

[dms1972]

Why would the Lord need to physically move a mountain? What are you saying here, that the figurative meaning is dependent upon his being literally able to do it?

 

[dreadnought]

Why would the Lord need to physically move a mountain?

He was just trying to make a point - he can, and will, do whatever it takes to keep you safe. If you were starving to death and there was a McDonald's on the other side of the mountain, he might move the mountain so you could eat.

 

[dms1972]

I think thats carrying it a bit far (no pun intended), I might change my mind about it, or I might not, but I am not a strict biblical literalist. Could God not find other ways to feed me (he sent ravens to feed Elijah), but you will probably now say "Would I not like a God who would move a mountain for me, if I was starving?"

I think it means He would do the equivalent of moving a mountain, ie. if the food was on the other side of the mountain, he won't literally move that, but he would nevertheless get the food to me somehow, it would be as if he had moved the mountain. What do you think?

 

[dreadnought]

I think thats carrying it a bit far (no pun intended), I might change my mind about it, or I might not, but I am not a biblical literalist. Could God not find other ways to feed me (he sent ravens to feed Elijah), but you will probably now say "Would I not like a God who would move a mountain for me, if I was starving?"

I think it means He would do the equivalent of moving a mountain, ie. if the food was on the other side of the mountain, he won't literally move that, but he would nevertheless get the food to me somehow, it would be as if he had moved the mountain. What do you think?

He would move the mountain if it needed to be moved. I'm sure he's done far greater things.

 

[dms1972]

And I say he would get the food to me somehow, if He wanted me to live?

 

[dreadnought]

Well assuming he wanted me to live?

He is showing us all the way to heaven.

 

[dms1972]

The discussion is going way off topic.