If man evolved, where does God fit into the equation?

[solarwave]

That said, I have a question. Where does God fit into the entire process then, if man is said to have evolved from primates? If God just allowed man to run its natural course and somehow evolve into an entire new species, then how was this in any way, an act of God? It's not difficult for an atheist to disbelieve in God, seeing how the theory of evolution does not require the existence of a god in order to be true. So it's understandable how so many atheists flock to this theory, in light of that. But it's strange to find so many Christians also believing in evolution.

I have to wonder where God fits into all of this, if at all? For the ardent evolutionists here, how strong is your faith in God? How do you KNOW God is real; or is it just something that you take 'on faith'?

In my opinion God shouldn't be used simply because we don't know how something happened unless absolutely necessary. We used to have no idea about our place in the universe and so God must have placed the stars and planets in perfect circles around us. We didn't understand the weather so God must cause it; how could anything else cause something to powerful as a lightning bolt? Many people don't believe in God just because it explains where we came from. Science can so this just as well.

So where does God fit in. God existed 'before' the Universe and holds it in existance at all times. This means our existance is dependant upon Him at all times not just at the beginning. Evolution doesn't have to be a direct act of God because God is clever enough to set up a system which can work without His interference. It could be possible though that God act in evolution to change its course, but this might not be seen as any different from random mutation from our perspective.

 

[Fencerguy]

In my opinion God shouldn't be used simply because we don't know how something happened unless absolutely necessary. We used to have no idea about our place in the universe and so God must have placed the stars and planets in perfect circles around us. We didn't understand the weather so God must cause it; how could anything else cause something to powerful as a lightning bolt? Many people don't believe in God just because it explains where we came from. Science can so this just as well.

I can buy this, although I would be careful because this line of thought could lead even believers to assume that God does not have any direct impact on the world (see my Plagues of Egypt example above).

So where does God fit in. God existed 'before' the Universe and holds it in existance at all times. This means our existance is dependant upon Him at all times not just at the beginning. Evolution doesn't have to be a direct act of God because God is clever enough to set up a system which can work without His interference. It could be possible though that God act in evolution to change its course, but this might not be seen as any different from random mutation from our perspective.

be careful here, This is very close to the Deist philosophy that God is the "Great Clockmaker," where He just sat back and watched how things happen. But we have recorded in Scripture God's desire to be a part of the lives of His people, even sending His Son to die for those people....So be careful how broadly you apply the idea that God set things into motion and then just let them go.....I would be more inclined to think that microevolution was set in place by God so that His creation would glorify Him by its ability to change and adapt and express variety...But that God is right there all the time with an attentive eye, carefully watching, and intervening when it is necessary.....Do we always see the fingerprint of God in this world? No, look how many people interpret His work in a way that totally removes Him from it....

 

[Assyrian]

No.

I am a truth-seeker, only seeking the truth.

I love God's creation.

No you don't. You hate what you see of God's creation, what you think you love exists only in the illustrations in childrens bible, two naked people surrounded by discrete foliage and a few elephants zebras a lion and a parrot or two. You only love a creation you see in your imagination, not the real thing.

Death, however, was not of God's design.

The bible doesn't say that. If you read the creation account in Job 38 adn Psalm 104 you will find them talking about God feeding hungry predators their prey.

My Bible tells me the devil was the one who held the power of death, not God.

But do you know why death has this power? 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. The devil has the power of death because people sinned, but this can only describe what death was like after mankind sinned, it says nothing about death before the fall.

 

[Assyrian]

Scripture relates that God created several types of organisms, and that they were to reproduce after their own kind....

Actually the bible doesn't says that, just that God commanded the earth to produce the different kinds of organisms. It doesn't say whether the earth produced each kind of organism separately, or if they diverged into separate kinds.

so the idea that all organisms came from a single ancestor is necessarily atheistic...

It just means your literal interpretation is mistaken.

 

[Assyrian]

There aren't different degrees of "perfect". Either something is perfect or it's not. Anything short of 'perfect' is therefore, imperfect. God is not "more perfect" than everything else. He is perfect. As are all His works - including Creation. A flawed, imperfect creation could not have come from a perfect God.

I think is a false dichotomy, it is certainly not the way the bible uses the term.
Heb 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

 

[theFijian]

someday we will even evolve to the point that sin no longer exists.

Really? And how will that happen? Some change in the DNA sequence perhaps?

 

[Papias]

Papias - I was not saying you ARE a deist, simply that the case you presented SOUNDED deistic in nature. That is all.

Yep, all good. Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy with a response in the formal debate about the RCC and evolution. I just posted there.

About your last post - you brought in a whole bunch of new issues, without simply answering my question about whether you, as what I described as an "A" type Christian, can see the B view. Here is my description again for your convenience:

Papias wrote:

If you subscribe to view A (what you call "typical Christianity"), then every discovery of science makes God more distant. In that view, God because a shrinking god, who as you point out, disappears. Obstetrics removes God from making babies, Gravity removes God from directing the planets, evolution removes God from the creation, pharmacology and brain science remove our souls from our minds, geology removes God from making the earth, Astronomy removes God from making the heavens, etc. They see “faith” as an effort of sheer will, where they need to keep pretending to believe what they know isn’t true, which becomes ever more difficult as science reveals the details of every aspect of our lives. Faith becomes a losing, and embittering, battle. So of course those with view A can either deny the real world, denying all these sciences, and implicitly endorsing ignorance and fear, or the person with view A can become an atheist. It’s obvious why those with view A can get so bitter, venomous, and fearful. I probably would too, if I felt my very world were threatened. I understand their feelings.


However, for those of us with view B, every discovery of science further show the hand of God, the glory of God. That’s why we don’t flee from science, be that astronomy, pharmacology, genetics or evolution. By showing us more of the acts of God that God is doing all the time (indeed, which allow my brain to think to type this!), God becomes more great every day. Faith in God becomes not only easier, but unavoidable. Which science at every turn showing God to be more and more glorious, having faith in God becomes as unstoppable as breathing.


If that is starting to make some sense (I’m again not asking you to shift to view B, but only to understand how someone – myself and millions of other Chrisitans – feels when holding it.), then perhaps read post #5 again, and see it that works better now.

Er72, does that help?

Could you please respond to that before the other topics? After doing so, here is my response to some of those other topics:

er72 wrote:

Now, as for evolution, for me it's really a non-issue.

With all due respect, from your posts on CF over the past several days, it has sounded like it is indeed a big issue for you.

For me, to say that humans are related to monkeys / apes / primates / other animals cheapens man's existence

Compared to being made of dirt? I'll pick a monkey over dirt any day. Is not any creation of God, regardless of the starting material, a glorious thing?

If we're nothing but a glorified monkey, then how do we have a soul? Did we evolve one? How can we evolve a soul or a spirit? Maybe we don't even have one (if we accept this theory as true).

God divinely created and gave Adam a soul, so we, as his descendants, have one. See my longer description here, which they have hopefully posted by now. http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/#post57357404

If man is nothing but a monkey (I know it's not technically accurate, but humor me), then should man be forbidden from intermarrying with other animals? After all, he is nothing but an animal, right? Why or why not? And don't write this question off as "absurd" because it DOES have legitimate implications.

God crafted morality in us as well. The process used evolution, and is well described in the book by Robert Wright, the Moral Animal. You may want to read that to see how the process works. That morality covers things like murder, fairness, justice, also.

Second, why does God have to be involved in the process? Who says? It certainly isn't in the Bible! No.

Your Bible as well as mine (they are quite different btw), do indeed say God is involved in the process - see Heb. 1:3, and so on. As a Christian, I say he is, you can choose what you want.

The Bible says God created man in His image, not in the image and likeness of Koko the Monkey. But to each his own, yes?

Spiritual image - otherwise you have to ask if God has dark skin, is 5' 11" tall, has hazel eyes, and other such nonsense.

Now, you must understand that while SOME Christians may believe in evolution, ALL atheists believe in evolution.

Now, you must understand that while SOME Christians may believe in a moving earth, ALL atheists believe in a moving earth.

Our various Bibles all describe a fixed earth if read literally. There are even Christians who advocate a flat earth for this reason. The Earth Is Not Moving

Evolution is no different from the idea that the Earth moves. Both are contradicted by a literal reading of our scripture, both are established beyond a shadow of a doubt by modern evidence, and in both cases, there are groups of Christians that deny them, making Christianity look silly.

Anyhow, we can try to synergize God and religion or faith and say that somehow He was magically behind it all, but we have zero evidence for that. How do we even know it would be the Christian God? Why not Allah, or Zeus, or Odin or Shiva? Why are we certain that's the Christian God? Just asking; I think it's a fair question.

As a Christian, I answer God. I agree you can answer as you wish.

The deist explanation probably makes the most sense, if someone were to accept the theory of evolution as indisputable fact and ultimate truth. Now of course, I don't do that, but if I did, then deism is probably the best explanation. Why attempt to somehow credit God for things which He may or may not have even been involved with? For all we know, perhaps the Big Bang arose out of God sneezing or something. Hey, there's a theory.

Except that it ignores scripture.

Ultimately, I believe it cheapens the meaning of being made as a divine-like being to say that man is nothing more than an advanced ape. How does saying this universe was made by completely natural means (or at least, human life as having evolved) bring ANY glory to God? I can't see how it does.

This paragraph suggestst that you still don't seem to understand the point of all my posts on this thread, which was the A vs B snippet I pasted at the start of this post.


I hope all this helps, but I'm begging to suspect that it doesn't.

Have a good day anyway-

Papias

 

[solarwave]

I can buy this, although I would be careful because this line of thought could lead even believers to assume that God does not have any direct impact on the world (see my Plagues of Egypt example above).

I would still say God is a personal God who acts in in the World. For example I accept the resurrection because it is impossible for science to explain how someone can die and 'reborn' in the way the disciples saw Jesus. I could also accept the point you make about the Plagues of Egypt. If science offers a good explaination though it should also be accepted.

be careful here, This is very close to the Deist philosophy that God is the "Great Clockmaker," where He just sat back and watched how things happen. But we have recorded in Scripture God's desire to be a part of the lives of His people, even sending His Son to die for those people....So be careful how broadly you apply the idea that God set things into motion and then just let them go.....I would be more inclined to think that microevolution was set in place by God so that His creation would glorify Him by its ability to change and adapt and express variety...But that God is right there all the time with an attentive eye, carefully watching, and intervening when it is necessary.....Do we always see the fingerprint of God in this world? No, look how many people interpret His work in a way that totally removes Him from it....

I was only talking about evolution and the creation of the universe, not all acts of God in general. I can accept miracles but not a 6 day creation.

 

[Fencerguy]

Actually the bible doesn't says that, just that God commanded the earth to produce the different kinds of organisms. It doesn't say whether the earth produced each kind of organism separately, or if they diverged into separate kinds.

From Genesis 1:
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

True that God said that the land would bring forth animals, but here we see that it also says that God made the various "kinds" of animals....see verses 24 and 25.... Granted, it doesn't say explicitly that they were all created simultaneously, but they were all created distinctly......The generic "kinds" I was referring to...

It just means your literal interpretation is mistaken.

And is yours inherently more infallible?

 

[Fencerguy]

I would still say God is a personal God who acts in in the World. For example I accept the resurrection because it is impossible for science to explain how someone can die and 'reborn' in the way the disciples saw Jesus. I could also accept the point you make about the Plagues of Egypt. If science offers a good explaination though it should also be accepted.

Which is a reasonable approach to the events described in the Bible....

I was only talking about evolution and the creation of the universe, not all acts of God in general. I can accept miracles but not a 6 day creation.

Ok....But what about a 6-day creation event is so unbelievable? If God can perform miracles that are believable for you, what makes Him creating the world in 6-days (regardless of how long ago) so unbelievable.....It does say there was evening and there was morning.....

 

[Assyrian]

From Genesis 1:
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

True that God said that the land would bring forth animals, but here we see that it also says that God made the various "kinds" of animals....see verses 24 and 25.... Granted, it doesn't say explicitly that they were all created simultaneously, but they were all created distinctly......The generic "kinds" I was referring to...

Each species, genus, phylum is distinct. You get a new distinct kind of organism every time a new species is formed.

And is yours inherently more infallible?

Can you have degrees of infallibility? My interpretation may be wrong, but yours is wrong, because the earth is billions of years old and life evolved.

I was only talking about evolution and the creation of the universe, not all acts of God in general. I can accept miracles but not a 6 day creation.

Ok....But what about a 6-day creation event is so unbelievable? If God can perform miracles that are believable for you, what makes Him creating the world in 6-days (regardless of how long ago) so unbelievable.....It does say there was evening and there was morning.....

I said that?

 

[er72]

No you don't. You hate what you see of God's creation, what you think you love exists only in the illustrations in childrens bible, two naked people surrounded by discrete foliage and a few elephants zebras a lion and a parrot or two. You only love a creation you see in your imagination, not the real thing.

People love being told what they believe by others.

The bible doesn't say that. If you read the creation account in Job 38 adn Psalm 104 you will find them talking about God feeding hungry predators their prey.

We're taking *Job* literally?

But do you know why death has this power? 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. The devil has the power of death because people sinned, but this can only describe what death was like after mankind sinned, it says nothing about death before the fall.

Because there was no death before the Fall.

 

[Fencerguy]

Each species, genus, phylum is distinct. You get a new distinct kind of organism every time a new species is formed.

I know you get a new kind of organism every time a species is formed; where does it say that the kinds of organisms in Genesis were at the species level? It doesn't, so it is open to the idea that there were generic kinds of animals created......heck, even considering that Genesis was written a looooong time after the events took place, who's to say that the author of Genesis wasn't using poetic license and describing the types of organisms that he saw around him?

Can you have degrees of infallibility?

not that I'm aware of........unless you say that competing interpretations are simply different, rather than one being right and one being wrong...

My interpretation may be wrong, but yours is wrong, because the earth is billions of years old and life evolved.

again, you and your infallibility......
Earth could be millions of years old, every dating method out there provides a range of dates that match the results of each test, billions of years is the maximum possible age for the earth presented by the test. The earth could be said to be a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years old....the dating techniques that give billions of years also include ages that are significantly younger as part of their results......

And further, I never said that life did not evolve, you have either misquoted me or totally misunderstood my argument.....


I said that?[/QUOTE]

 

[Fencerguy]

I think it's sad some Christians overemphasize any quality of God over His love, because God is Love. 1 John 4:8.

I also find it hypocritical to see Christians arguing and fighting to defend their idol of Science when they should, instead, be doing good works, walking in love, encouraging and edifying the Body.

Well, since we Christians aren't perfect yet we are kind of doomed to hypocrisy lol......

But Christians also have a responsibility to be educated about the things that they believe, and a facet of that education comes in considering science and its relationship to our faith, they cannot and should not be mutually exclusive...

 

[Assyrian]

People love being told what they believe by others.

So, that is agreeing with me?

We're taking *Job* literally?

Personally no, I think it is a beautify metaphor, but it is still a metaphorical picture of God providing for his creation through predation. More to the point, do you take Job literally, if so how do you pick and choose which creation accounts to take literally and which to take metaphorically?

Because there was no death before the Fall.

That is a different argument from the devil being the power of death, which as we see, does not apply to the creation accounts. The problem is, your new argument that there was no death before the fall is not something we are told in scripture. People read this into various passages in scripture, but the bible does not actually teach it itself.

 

[Assyrian]

I know you get a new kind of organism every time a species is formed; where does it say that the kinds of organisms in Genesis were at the species level? It doesn't, so it is open to the idea that there were generic kinds of animals created......heck, even considering that Genesis was written a looooong time after the events took place, who's to say that the author of Genesis wasn't using poetic license and describing the types of organisms that he saw around him?

I think he probably was. Inspired poetry, but poetry rooted in his understanding of the world around him. Personally I don't think 'kind' ties to any specific biological category, but refer broadly to all the different categories the ancient Hebrews could see around them so a peregrine falcon is a kind of falcon, but falcon is a kind of bird. The different breeds of sheep are all different kinds, but also part of sheep kind. Of course this is still open to each kind being created distinctly, it just doesn't mean they have to be.

not that I'm aware of........unless you say that competing interpretations are simply different, rather than one being right and one being wrong...

Our interpretations could be right, they could be wrong, more often they are partly right with different degrees of wrong. The only thing our interpretations can't be is infallible and I don't think anything can be partly infallible

again, you and your infallibility......

You are the one who brought up infallibility. I used to be a Catholic I'm not really into infallibility any more.

Earth could be millions of years old, every dating method out there provides a range of dates that match the results of each test, billions of years is the maximum possible age for the earth presented by the test. The earth could be said to be a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years old....the dating techniques that give billions of years also include ages that are significantly younger as part of their results......

Significantly meaning a few hundred thousand years with a date that measures tens of millions, or a few million years with a date that is billions of years old. But not a significant difference if you think the earth is only a few thousand years old.

And further, I never said that life did not evolve, you have either misquoted me or totally misunderstood my argument.....

Unless you think as science tells us that life evolved from a common ancestry over billion of years rather than simply evolving rapidly after the ark, then no I don't think I have misunderstood you (that I am aware of ) But please feel free to clarify.

 

[Papias]

er72-

I see you have again refused to answer my question about the two different ways of seeing God. As we've seen, it is the central issue to this whole thread. I'm still curious as to your view (A or B, or something else). Here it is again:

Papias wrote:

If you subscribe to view A (what you call "typical Christianity"), then every discovery of science makes God more distant. In that view, God because a shrinking god, who as you point out, disappears. Obstetrics removes God from making babies, Gravity removes God from directing the planets, evolution removes God from the creation, pharmacology and brain science remove our souls from our minds, geology removes God from making the earth, Astronomy removes God from making the heavens, etc. They see “faith” as an effort of sheer will, where they need to keep pretending to believe what they know isn’t true, which becomes ever more difficult as science reveals the details of every aspect of our lives. Faith becomes a losing, and embittering, battle. So of course those with view A can either deny the real world, denying all these sciences, and implicitly endorsing ignorance and fear, or the person with view A can become an atheist. It’s obvious why those with view A can get so bitter, venomous, and fearful. I probably would too, if I felt my very world were threatened. I understand their feelings.


However, for those of us with view B, every discovery of science further show the hand of God, the glory of God. That’s why we don’t flee from science, be that astronomy, pharmacology, genetics or evolution. By showing us more of the acts of God that God is doing all the time (indeed, which allow my brain to think to type this!), God becomes more great every day. Faith in God becomes not only easier, but unavoidable. Which science at every turn showing God to be more and more glorious, having faith in God becomes as unstoppable as breathing.


If that is starting to make some sense (I’m again not asking you to shift to view B, but only to understand how someone – myself and millions of other Chrisitans – feels when holding it.), then perhaps read post #5 again, and see it that works better now.

Er72, does that help?

In another topic, you wrote:

there was no death before the Fall.

A moment's thought shows that there are tons of obvious reasons why that makes no sense. Even a lot of young earth creationists have rejected that idea (and it has no basis in scripture anyway).

Here is a whole thread on it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7519515/

Papias

 

[Fencerguy]

I think he probably was. Inspired poetry, but poetry rooted in his understanding of the world around him.

I like this line, its quite profound, as he understood the world, which makes sense that Genesis is as nonspecific as it is.....There were some things that can be taken as historical fact (evening and morning, 6 days) and other things that can be looked at with a discerning eye (kinds, how long ago it really was, etc)....

Personally I don't think 'kind' ties to any specific biological category, but refer broadly to all the different categories the ancient Hebrews could see around them so a peregrine falcon is a kind of falcon, but falcon is a kind of bird. The different breeds of sheep are all different kinds, but also part of sheep kind. Of course this is still open to each kind being created distinctly, it just doesn't mean they have to be.

You are saying now what I have been saying all along, that there were "kinds" of animals (not necessarily fitting into any modern taxonomical category) that had a large amount of genetic information at their disposal, and that they began increasing in variety and diversity as soon as they were created.......with regard to your last line about each kind being created distinctly; were you referring to species? Because that does not hold water; scientifically or theologically....

Our interpretations could be right, they could be wrong, more often they are partly right with different degrees of wrong. The only thing our interpretations can't be is infallible and I don't think anything can be partly infallible

You are the one who brought up infallibility. I used to be a Catholic I'm not really into infallibility any more.

What made you change your mind? Something has to be infallible, or else we know nothing about our faith for sure....

Significantly meaning a few hundred thousand years with a date that measures tens of millions, or a few million years with a date that is billions of years old. But not a significant difference if you think the earth is only a few thousand years old.

I never said that I think the earth is a few thousand years old, what I said was that I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon that the maximum possible ages for the earth and the universe are undoubtedly the ages that they actually are.....

Unless you think as science tells us that life evolved from a common ancestry over billion of years rather than simply evolving rapidly after the ark, then no I don't think I have misunderstood you (that I am aware of ) But please feel free to clarify.

You have either misunderstood me here again by your very response, or you are deliberately changing what I say. I did not ever say that life evolved rapidly after the ark exclusively, I think life has been evolving from the very moment of Creation. I do not think there is one common ancestor for all life forms, there is not sufficient data to support that idea beyond refutation. And I further (as I have said before) do not believe that billions of years--being the maximum possible age--is an accurate estimation of the age of the earth....I am much more comfortable with an age in the hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Assyrian]

I like this line, its quite profound, as he understood the world, which makes sense that Genesis is as nonspecific as it is.....There were some things that can be taken as historical fact (evening and morning, 6 days) and other things that can be looked at with a discerning eye (kinds, how long ago it really was, etc)....

I was actually describing what is known as accommodation, that God spoke to people in terms of their own worldview and cosmology. It is an idea that goes back to Calvin and before him Augustine and was how the church dealt with the heliocentrism when it came up. Until then everybody understood the geocentric passages geocentrically. Now you get people explaining them in terms of relativity and apparent motion, but those are pretty modern concepts, the way the church first dealt with the question was through accommodation, that the people who wrote the bible and its first audience all understood the cosmos geocentrically and God spoke to them in those terms.

Now a lot of TEs use accommodation to deal with the contradiction between Genesis and science, and it is not hard to see the flat earth, three tiered ancient cosmology behind the descriptions in Genesis 1. But I think the poetry is an even simpler explanation of the days, that they weren't mean as a literal chronology, as we can see from the completely different chronology in the second creation account

You are saying now what I have been saying all along, that there were "kinds" of animals (not necessarily fitting into any modern taxonomical category) that had a large amount of genetic information at their disposal, and that they began increasing in variety and diversity as soon as they were created.......with regard to your last line about each kind being created distinctly; were you referring to species? Because that does not hold water; scientifically or theologically....

No, I meant the 'whatever Genesis 1 means by kinds' kinds. OK, so you think the kinds were created with the genetic diversity to allow them to diverge into different species. Are these new species kinds too? Presumably there was an original equine kind that diverged into horses, donkeys and zebra, which the Mosaic law said you were not supposed to interbreed. Are horses donkeys and zebras now separate kinds? What I am thinking of is the list of clean and unclean kinds in Leviticus
Lev 11:14 the kite, the falcon of any kind,
15 every raven of any kind,
Each type of falcon and each type of raven is a separate kind, but presumably if they are all called falcon or raven, when they were originally created with all that genetic diversity were they simply 'raven kind' and 'falcon kind'? Are the falcons still 'falcon kind' as well as being 'peregrine falcon kind', 'gyrfalcon kind', 'merlin kind' and 'laughing falcon kind'.

Now, while the idea of different kinds being created with the genetic diversity to allow further divergence can explain the description in Genesis, it is not an explanation Genesis tells us. The only reason I can see for adopting this rather the evolution of kinds from a common ancestor, is the time constraint of interpreting Genesis as a six literal and consecutive days, but as far as "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds" goes, evolution through mutation and natural selection over hundreds of million of years fits just as well.

What is really interesting in Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds" is that we see God commanding natural processes, the earth, to produce the different kinds of animals. This answers the biggest stumbling block for creationists, who see the natural processes in evolution as contradicting creation, instead of being how God created all the different kinds of life.

What made you change your mind? Something has to be infallible, or else we know nothing about our faith for sure....

You could say truth is infallible, but that isn't saying anything more than truth can't be false, can't be untrue. Which is is itself true, but kind of trivial. It is people I don't think are infallible.

I never said that I think the earth is a few thousand years old, what I said was that I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon that the maximum possible ages for the earth and the universe are undoubtedly the ages that they actually are.....

You have either misunderstood me here again by your very response, or you are deliberately changing what I say. I did not ever say that life evolved rapidly after the ark exclusively, I think life has been evolving from the very moment of Creation.

You description of kinds being created with greater genetic diversity allowing them to diverge into different species is pretty much what I thought you believed. Most creationists see this as happening after the flood, but it is the same basic idea.

I do not think there is one common ancestor for all life forms, there is not sufficient data to support that idea beyond refutation.

All science is open to refutation if you can come up with solid evidence to refute it, so far there isn't any evidence to contradict common ancestry, simply evidence to support it, and plenty of it. What shook me as a creationist was the discovery you could take a gene for the production of ATP in humans and substitute it into yeast and it still works.

And I further (as I have said before) do not believe that billions of years--being the maximum possible age--is an accurate estimation of the age of the earth....I am much more comfortable with an age in the hundreds of thousands of years.

The billions of years is certainly what the scientific evidence says, and it has been confirmed by widely different methods of measuring it. If you are more comfortable with hundreds of thousands, how do you see that fitting in with the Genesis days?

 

[granpa]

yes, its a jungle out there.
but as i pointed out before, we have domesticated ourselves.
we are evolving to have life more abundantly.
someday we will even evolve to the point that sin no longer exists.

evolution is not random.
things happen for a reason.

Says you.

Most evolutionary scientists plainly teach that the process is a) Random and b ) Without the necessity of a supernatural being guiding it.

mutations may be random but natural selection is definitely not random (nobody teaches that) and who said anything about a supernatural being (or any other kind of being)?

Convergent evolution proves that natural selection is not random.