The Lie of Evolution

[NobleMouse]

Interesting link, which supports a view held by many that the Bible is not itself the word of God in its entirety, but is witness to divine revelation. There's another alternative view for you.

There are other alternatives. For instance, given that a person accepts II Tim 3:16, there are a variety of views as to exactly how God inspired the biblical authors.

I see how God inspired the biblical authors as being irrelevant as to whether scripture is true, as the source of that inspiration (God) is truth. If God tells of creation by divine revelation through the various books of the Bible, why reject it and in it's place accept ideas like evolution and billions of years, which God did not divinely inspire? Root question: Where do you place your ultimate source of authority and truth on the topic of creation? No responses needed, I know where you stand and why and you know where I stand and why.

Despite our disagreement on this topic, I have sincerely appreciated the time and responses given by all members here.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Speedwell]

I see how God inspired the biblical authors as being irrelevant as to whether scripture is true, as the source of that inspiration (God) is truth.

I don't think so. There is too big a range of interesting possibilities. Mind you, I am not arguing for any one of them--I hope you aren't one of those who thinks anyone who talks to him about alternative interpretations of Genesis is only trying to find an opening for "evilution." You can't count on it. YECs are a minority of Christians, and there are Christian groups who reject evolution and reject the YEC interpretation of scripture as well.
But for instance, does divine inspiration allow for phenomenological language? Does it require particular literary genres? If Genesis is history, what kind of history is it? And so on...

 

[NobleMouse]

I don't think so. There is too big a range of interesting possibilities. Mind you, I am not arguing for any one of them--I hope you aren't one of those who thinks anyone who talks to him about alternative interpretations of Genesis is only trying to find an opening for "evilution." You can't count on it. YECs are a minority of Christians, and there are Christian groups who reject evolution and reject the YEC interpretation of scripture as well.
But for instance, does divine inspiration allow for phenomenological language? Does it require particular literary genres? If Genesis is history, what kind of history is it? And so on...

You are free to interpret Genesis as you wish, thank you for your time and thoughts!

 

[Job 33:6]

As to scripture stating the age of the earth, again scripture is not vague nor silent on the matter of man being created on day 6, and we have lineages from Adam to Christ, and we know approximately when Christ lived relative to today. No where can evolution and billions of years be retrofitted into the Bible.

Twisting and manipulating scripture to mean something it does not is rooted in satan himself. I want to be real clear here that I'm not at all saying you are satanic, but rather the "lie of evolution" as per the title of this thread originates from the father of lies. ]

Fast forward to today, we now have man being deceived yet again by the father of lies: "Does 'yom' in the context of the Genesis account really mean a 24-hr day?", "Is the lineage from Adam to Christ reliable and literal?", "Isn't Genesis really just poetic allegory?", "Doesn't 'in the beginning' just refer to the beginning of man, not the beginning of all life before man?", etc...

To all these lies as well as those widely accepted and propagated within secular historical science, I respond the same as Jesus, "It is written...". The Bible is clear as to not permit ideas like evolution and billions of years. Wrapping up here with historical science, nobody has observed evolution in seeing one kind become another kind, nobody has observed billions of years. These are just made up stories invented in the mind of man (in the absence of biblical doctrine) used to tell about a false past without a loving creator God.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

Hi Noble Mouse,

I just want to start by saying that I love my family in Christ, and am not interested in offending anyone.

I just do not believe that this idea of "It is written" is so straight forward. Here is another example, in scripture, it is written that Eve was formed from the rib of man. It is truly written, Amen, but when we look at life as it exists around us, to be fair, this concept of a human being formed from a rib, is alien to us.

It is truly written, and in large, scripture contains much beauty and awe. However, we are divided on how to interpret these passages. When divided in opinion on our interpretation of scripture, we can only defer an alternative form of Gods truth. (Kind like if two people are in dispute, they might turn to a third person to clarify from an outside position).

Not only did God speak through the body of Jesus to form scripture. God also created the heavens and the earth. So when divided in interpretations of scripture (which is easy to do across many sects of Christianity), there is no sin in looking toward Gods creation of earth, for answers. Gods creation of earth is clear in its old age. It is not written in words, however, it is written by God in stone (literally in the rocks). This is not the word of man we follow, we are looking not at words written by apostles either, nor interpretations of words written by apostles. We are looking directly at Gods creation (earth) itself. And it is clear.

If anything, Satan may more freely operate in the minds of man, manipulating opinions of scripture where different people can look at the same words and find different understandings. Satan may manipulate interpretations easier in scripture than he may manipulate interpretations of stone, which is hard. And no matter who is examining or interpreting it, it remains hard.

If i told you that I was baking a cake, it is easy for us to read "baking a cake" and to think of different kinds of cakes being baked, different smells, different tastes, different ovens and bake times, different flavors and toppings.

But if I literally gave you the cake, neither of us would disagree on its flavor.

Earth is the cake. It is not words about the cake, nor words that can be interpreted differently by people. Earth is Gods creation, it is not words written by apostles about creation, nor interpreted or rearranged, or re-translated, later by mankind. It is creation in and of itself. And if it is old, then the tie breaker between differing interpretations of scripture, is done.

~all the best.

 

[NobleMouse]

Hi Noble Mouse,

I just want to start by saying that I love my family in Christ, and am not interested in offending anyone.

As an overall response to your note, I can tell you put a good deal of time, thought and care in writing it, and it was well received and very much appreciated! As you know, I am firm in my position in standing upon the word of God and the Genesis account in forming the assumptions I make and in the formation of my worldview; however, likewise I do not wish to offend my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I try to be very careful in the language and tone of my responses (though still sometimes fail) - I wish to come across as understanding and open to hear different perspectives yet also be bold enough to be willing to challenge assumptions made outside of the biblical framework.

I just do not believe that this idea of "It is written" is so straight forward. Here is another example, in scripture, it is written that Eve was formed from the rib of man. It is truly written, Amen, but when we look at life as it exists around us, to be fair, this concept of a human being formed from a rib, is alien to us.

To be clear, I don't take a literal, stringing-of-the-words-together-at-face-value interpretation on all of scripture and recognize there are times that a deeper meaning or idea is trying to be conveyed beyond what is portrayed at face value. I do; however, trust what Jesus says and when he says they were created in the beginning as both male and female that this really is true - Adam and Eve were real people, in a real garden, at the creation week event. As far as Eve coming from the rib of Adam, I have no doubt this also did occur. I always chuckle a little when I hear people today say, well why is it that both men and women have 12 pairs of ribs, that proves that Eve didn't really come from a rib. To that I respond: Why would God keep taking a rib from every man? God just used Adam's rib to make Eve. From that point on, ribs don't have to keep being taken every time a little girl is born - it was kind of a one-time event, only 1 first woman - Eve. So, yes, Adam had one less rib because God used it to form Eve... Cain and the rest to follow; however, likely had all ribs present.

It is truly written, and in large, scripture contains much beauty and awe. However, we are divided on how to interpret these passages. When divided in opinion on their interpretation of scripture, we can only defer an alternative form of Gods truth.

Not only did God speak through the body of Jesus to form scripture. God also created the heavens and the earth. So when divided in interpretations of scripture (which is easy to do across many sects of Christianity), there is no sin in looking toward Gods creation of earth, for answers. Gods creation of earth is clear in its old age. It is not written in words, however, it is written by God in stone (literally in the rocks). This is not the word of man we follow, we are looking not at words written by apostles either, nor interpretations of words written by apostles. We are looking directly at Gods creation (earth) itself. And it is clear.

If anything, Satan may more freely operate in the minds of man, manipulating opinions of scripture where different people can look at the same words and find different understandings. Satan may manipulate interpretations easier in scripture than he may manipulate interpretations of stone, which is hard no matter who is examining it and remains hard.

God has chosen to reveal himself in His word to us here in the Church Age. John 12:36-43 gives a good picture of the people of the day, which is still evident today. Scripture is self-revealing and sufficient to know the truth; however, even when people see the truth, some still reject - whether it by blinded eyes, a hardened heart, or satan operating in the mind. One would read Genesis and interpret the creation account as truth, unless one is presupposed to believe it should not be interpreted that way. This presupposed 'lens' to interpret it differently is from the influence of secular science that the Earth is old and that life arose as a slow, gradual process of increasing complexity (evolution), as opposed to a creator God.

If i told you that I was baking a cake, it is easy for us to read "baking a cake" and to think of different kinds of cakes being baked, different smells, different tastes, different ovens and bake times, different flavors and toppings.

But if I literally gave you the cake, neither of us would disagree on its flavor.

Earth is the cake. It is not words of the cake. Earth is Gods creation, it is not words written by apostles, nor interpreted later by mankind.

~all the best.

I really liked the analogy here and thought this was very well done! I don't think though that we've directly tasted the cake. From your picture, references to rocks, and the Earth I take it you are either a geologist or have an affinity towards geology? If so, I'll assume you are familiar with radiometric dating and that the conventional age of the earth given of ~4.5b years is based on the dating of isotopes from meteors that have crashed on the Earth. I won't get into the details of radiometric dating here since it is not central to "The Lie of Evolution" topic, nor am I a geologist. That said, I know, like evolution, assumptions are made from things not observed when aging rocks (assumptions: was a closed system, number of initial parent and daughter atoms are known, rate of decay is constant). It's been demonstrated in labs that the decay rate can be accelerated by a factor of over a billion too, so it is very plausible that decay rates may have significantly been altered during the creation event. This statement I just made is not formed upon observed fact, but neither are rock ages on the basis of radiometric/isochron dating - again, the cake has not been directly tasted (like assuming it is chocolate because it is brown when in fact it may just be a dark spice cake... trying to keep with the theme of the analogy).

Speaking of assumptions, evolution has some of it's own does it not? Nobody has seen macro evolution nor what is sometimes called GOF (gain of function) as the result of mutations & natural selection within DNA (GOF is implicitly understood as meaningful/purposeful, not like a vestigial limb that serves no purpose or adaptive immunity). The problem with evolution is that the theory assumes gradual change over long periods of time that result in drastic change - this is how we get from molecules to man. In doing some research on this recently, I've come to understand that DNA does not allow for this because when mutations result in duplicated DNA not utilized (ie they become "junk" DNA) they are very often deleted. So, we can have variations within a given species (why you and I do not look alike), but we cannot have the sudden development of limbs, eyes, a brain, heart, lungs, other distinct organs where there was none before. This; however, is exactly what evolution requires. For evolution to work, our DNA would have to hold on to and accumulate mutated junk DNA for long periods of time (millions of years), continuously sorting it out, off to the side, without 'crashing' the good DNA, until it could do something meaningful. This does not happen, instead, the junk DNA is deleted and repairs are made - how God designed it to work (how very good, indeed).

Evolution is a well-formed story with many 'loose' ends tied up quite neatly by very intelligent/influential, well-educated and well-meaning men and women throughout history. That said, a well-formed story does not prove true just because it is neat and tidy. Evolution can be rejected on the basis of God's word alone..... but we also see as technology has improved and there has been an opportunity to study life more closely that there are major issues with the assumptions made behind evolution. The following article was informative for someone like me who is the lay person in understanding DNA and mutations and you might enjoy as well:

mutations-new-information - creation.com

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Job 33:6]

If you are trying to debate on scientific grounds (which appears to be the case in the second half of your post), your battle is already lost.

I am a geologist. I have nothing to prove debating here on an internet forum (unless you would like me to respond to specifics). On scientific grounds though, particularly in geology, it is clear that the earth is old. There isnt really any way around this. Either you are familiar with geology, or you aren't.

Old Earth Geology

Here^ something to chew on if you would like.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[NobleMouse]

If you are trying to debate on scientific grounds (which appears to be the case in the second half of your post), your battle is already lost.

I am a geologist. I have nothing to prove debating here on an internet forum (unless you would like me to respond to specifics). On scientific grounds though, particularly in geology, it is clear that the earth is old. There isnt really any way around this. Either you are familiar with geology, or you aren't.

Old Earth Geology

Here^ something to chew on if you would like.

Thanks for the discussion.

Thank you! I will review this link as it will be good to learn more on geology. I am not looking to debate on scientific grounds as I am not a scientist by any measure, though do like to have a minor familiarity with basic terms and concepts. I believe one can understand basic concepts and the underlying assumptions of various disciplines without having to earn a PhD in the subject and that's about the extent of my interest in science. I will leave debating over the details to creationist scientists and secular scientists. Geology seems like a complex and highly technical field, so I commend you on the pursuit of this as a career!

As of 2009, nearly 70% of scientists were atheists (see Pew Research article: Scientists and Belief). As such, it is of little surprise to find that most scientific concepts go against the grain of Christian doctrine - that is, most scientists aren't out looking to see if the conclusions they are forming, as they apply the scientific method, line up with scripture - I've seen it stated that the Bible is not a scientific text so why should it be consulted when doing research in the field anyway, right? In fact, most within the scientific community would say that to do so is not "good science", as this would introduce presupposed ideas on how to interpret evidence: a big no-no, correct?. At the same time, we believe God created everything, so a biblical 'filter' doesn't seem like a bad idea when it comes to the formulation of hypotheses to test. Good science tells us that we should know by now that evolution, billions of years, and big bangs are fact and reality, period; yet none of these conclusions are based upon observation.

In quick review of the scientific method (you've probably got this memorized, I had to pull it off the internet): "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." (I bolded the one aspect for emphasis on my point).

How is it that evolution is a fact, yet not observed (remember variation within a species is not evolution, a finch is still a finch no matter how many varieties of finch you come across; adaptive immunity is also not evolution). Evolution asserts that over many millions of years, major biological changes have occurred, resulting in life as we see it today - yet major biological changes have never been observed. Is this really the same "good" science that scoffs at a biblical interpretation of evidence? Creationist scientists are basically having to repeat all of the research done over the past several hundred years that had no bearing in mind of God, so be patient and give them a few hundred years to catch up. Even with that, I'm finding there is scientific research being done today, within a Biblical framework, on almost every topic that is brought up as another knock against the Genesis account of creation.

Let's step away for a moment to take an interesting perspective on God and the Bible: Let's imagine that the universe really is ~14b years old and earth really is ~4.5b years old. During this time, God caused the big bang,......... then pretty much did absolutely nothing until about 6,000 years ago (according to the Bible), then in a very very very short time, had to send His only son, Jesus, to die for the sins of man (man, the creature created in the very image of God, God's crowing creation above all else that was created) just about 2,000 years ago. So God waited ~14b years minus ~0.000006b years before really getting around to the events of the Bible and creating man, the very thing God was creating all of creation for? And from that time, there is a wild flurry of activity between God and man, all kinds of sin so Jesus comes and dies, and we arrive at today. To put it into perspective, if all of time and creation was represented in the pyramids of Egypt, of the tallest (being 455 ft), this means that God didn't bother creating the very thing everything was created for until the top few grains of sand - literally the top 2/1000th of an inch of the pyramid - like just a layer of paint on the very top. Put another way, if all of time and creation was represented in a 100m dash, nothing really happened until the last 4/100th of a millimeter of the race. Seems peculiar that the God who is always working (see John 5:17), just took a ~13.999994 billion year break before really getting serious. In fact, according to mainstream science, it would seem God had a much larger interest in trilobites and dinosaurs than man as he's spent much more time with them. I know, it probably comes off as a bit "snarky", but the point is just to illustrate that this is not a very good story and is inconsistent with the very character of God, who is with us at all times and is working in our lives continuously. This fictitious story is not at all what the Bible tells us.

Science cannot prove the existence of the God of the Bible (otherwise, perhaps there would not be approx ~4+ billion people who believe in other gods or simply no god at all), and we also find that science cannot disprove the credibility of God's word either.

Humbly in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Job 33:6]

I you aren't familiar with geology, then you cannot rightfully take a position on the age of the earth. And if you aren't at least a scientist, you can't rightfully judge biological evolution. You just can't do it because you need to see the earth in depth to understand it's age.

Depth in geology is vast, without studying, you couldn't know it to discern truth vs falsehood.

It's like asking someone the explain Christianity when they haven't read scripture.

Let me know what you think of my other topic. Take time to digest it, and see if you can find a way to explain it with a flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

I do respect your confidence and trust in Christ. I just think that you have to arm yourself with knowledge of the earth, before judging it's age.

 

[NobleMouse]

I do respect your confidence and trust in Christ. I just think that you have to arm yourself with knowledge of the earth, before judging it's age.

Thank you and I respect your input and position as well! Also, sorry for the delay in responding! I think we all make judgments about things we do not have full knowledge of and that is acceptable. After all, I am not an engineer, but have made the judgment that the building I work in and the home I sleep in are structurally sound. Similarly, real scientists with real PhD's from real universities have indicated that there is much geological evidence of a young Earth and that of a global flood. To your analogy, I'm not like someone who is trying to explain Christianity but has never read scripture - rather, I'd be more like someone who has never read scripture but believes in God and is trusting what experts in theology, who also believe in God, tell me about Christianity. I apologize if I've conveyed the idea that any scientific arguments I've made were the result of my own persuasion in areas where I have no experience; the arguments I've presented are from those who have PhD's in Biology (and Geology), mostly from secular universities, yet are absolutely convinced that the Genesis account of creation in the Bible is accurate and true.

I enjoyed the article you referenced in post #106! I will say I was not absolutely clear what the challenge being made to creationists was - I'm thinking it had to do with the unique/complex layers and the idea that these could not have been formed in such a short window of time like 6,000 yrs? Being I am not a scientist, I can only respond by making a few non-scientific observations and references to what creationist scientists have indicated:

When God asked Job, "Were you there when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" (Job 38:4), should I not assume rock layers are not the result of God laying them down, or put another way, is what God did just a layer-less chunk of solid rock such that any visual 'layering' is the sole result of natural processes? What Job 38:4 seems to suggest is that God laid down more than one layer. Most creationist geologists seem to indicate that natural processes observed today will most often lay down deposits of sand and mud in thin layers, not the really thick layers as seen in places like the Grand Canyon - it would take a significantly more catastrophic event... Like the Noachian flood to create the Grand Canyon. As for the lack of dinosaur fossils in NY - you also indicated no mammals or birds either; could it just be that the area was not supportive of land life? Seems marine fossils have been found, so could it not be NY was more supportive of a marine ecology at the time? Again, we were not there when the foundations of the Earth were laid and cannot say with certainty what the geographic makeup of NY was like before the flood.

I think creationist scientists and secular scientists agree as to how the Appalachian and Himalayan mountain ranges formed, but the interpretation is when. I heard many references to hundreds of millions of years for these mountains to form from the video, but no explanation behind this assumption. Many in secular science seem to speculate cataclysmic events past in Earth's past creating mass extinctions, yet turn around and assume slow and gradual progression of things as with today's non-cataclysmic present. Millions/billions of years are certainly one interpretation, but there are also experts in the field who approach from a Biblical perspective and they present a cohesive and logical narrative for understanding Earth's (and life's) history, also backing their assertions on the evidence seen. Two different paradigms, and when it comes to topics of biology (evolution) or geology - both secular and creationist scientists have made good contributions and observations, but it is the biblical framework and the word of God in understanding origins that I have always found reliable.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why does it have to be a "lie," an intentional falsehood? Why can't it just be wrong?

We only have to take serious what is in the Biology book. Esp. if you're a High School student and want to graduate. Pointless discussions and debates should be avoided.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .Let's step away for a moment to take an interesting perspective on God and the Bible: Let's imagine that the universe really is ~14b years old and earth really is ~4.5b years old. During this time, God caused the big bang,......... then pretty much did absolutely nothing until about 6,000 years ago (according to the Bible), then in a very very very short time, had to send His only son, Jesus, to die for the sins of man (man, the creature created in the very image of God, God's crowing creation above all else that was created) just about 2,000 years ago. So God waited ~14b years minus ~0.000006b years before really getting around to the events of the Bible and creating man, the very thing God was creating all of creation for? . . . .

Apparently the idea has never occurred to you that God can do things and have purposes and control events that did not get into the Bible.

 

[NobleMouse]

Apparently the idea has never occurred to you that God can do things and have purposes and control events that did not get into the Bible.

Thank you for the response Paul. A book cannot contain all that is within an infinite God, nor will we fully know Him even after 10,000 years. While the Bible gives us a very small glimpse of certain truths about God, I also believe He does not contradict His word. Billions of years could certainly be possible and have a purpose, if the Bible did not give us information to the contrary. As I've stated before, and is apparent from reading, the Bible is not silent on the origin of life nor when God created the heavens and the earth. This is one of those small glimpses of truth, God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th, and we are given an account of the first man and woman, as well as their lineage up through Christ. No evolution from microbes, no billions of years.

I understand mainstream science feels certain and is adamant about the conclusions they've drawn from the observations they've made. As I've said before, no direct observation has been made of evolution (specifically, macro-evolution) and some secular scientists have admitted to this - albeit most will contend to the contrary. There are plenty of good reasons though why mainstream science upholds this theory of evolution and this theory does provide explanation for many observations that scientists of either persuasion see. You may enjoy some of the work done by Dr. Todd Wood - he is a creationist scientist, but also fairly recognizes too that evolution is not some left field concept formed by the dull-of-mind:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thank you for the response Paul. A book cannot contain all that is within an infinite God, nor will we fully know Him even after 10,000 years. While the Bible gives us a very small glimpse of certain truths about God, I also believe He does not contradict His word. Billions of years could certainly be possible and have a purpose, if the Bible did not give us information to the contrary. As I've stated before, and is apparent from reading, the Bible is not silent on the origin of life nor when God created the heavens and the earth. This is one of those small glimpses of truth, God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th, and we are given an account of the first man and woman, as well as their lineage up through Christ. No evolution from microbes, no billions of years.

I understand mainstream science feels certain and is adamant about the conclusions they've drawn from the observations they've made. As I've said before, no direct observation has been made of evolution (specifically, macro-evolution) and some secular scientists have admitted to this - albeit most will contend to the contrary. There are plenty of good reasons though why mainstream science upholds this theory of evolution and this theory does provide explanation for many observations that scientists of either persuasion see. You may enjoy some of the work done by Dr. Todd Wood - he is a creationist scientist, but also fairly recognizes too that evolution is not some left field concept formed by the dull-of-mind:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

We have direct observation of all the evolution we can reasonably expect to see happening in the lifetime of those observing.

If direct observation is your criterion, you don't have it for the creation week yourself, you know. So why bring that in as a criterion?

 

[NobleMouse]

We have direct observation of all the evolution we can reasonably expect to see happening in the lifetime of those observing.

If direct observation is your criterion, you don't have it for the creation week yourself, you know. So why bring that in as a criterion?

Thank you! Yes my criteria is one of two: (1) direct observation (which has only observed variability of a species through natural selection using existing genetic information - not what I consider molecules-to-man evolution - which is ultimately what evolution asserts) or (2) a reliable source that witnessed the event. No direct observation of the creation week as you have pointed out; however, there is a very reliable source that did witness (and performed) the events, and also divinely inspired the documentation of those events in the book you and I call the Bible.

I have another link here to a page with a video of Dr. Todd Wood (it's a little lengthy - about ~48 min, but you might enjoy) where he goes into an overview of various skulls that have traditionally been labeled as transitional precursors to modern man. What he shows is that what initially appears as ape-man skulls in fact all fall into distinctive groups (humans or apes) with no 'bridge' skull that fits in between apes and humans - again fitting into variability of species through natural selection using existing information, not changing from one kind into another kind.

Exploring Ape-Man & Adam - Lecture by Dr. Todd Wood, Biologist

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thank you! Yes my criteria is one of two: (1) direct observation (which has only observed variability of a species through natural selection using existing genetic information - not what I consider molecules-to-man evolution - which is ultimately what evolution asserts) or (2) a reliable source that witnessed the event. No direct observation of the creation week as you have pointed out; however, there is a very reliable source that did witness (and performed) the events, and also divinely inspired the documentation of those events in the book you and I call the Bible.

I have another link here to a page with a video of Dr. Todd Wood (it's a little lengthy - about ~48 min, but you might enjoy) where he goes into an overview of various skulls that have traditionally been labeled as transitional precursors to modern man. What he shows is that what initially appears as ape-man skulls in fact all fall into distinctive groups (humans or apes) with no 'bridge' skull that fits in between apes and humans - again fitting into variability of species through natural selection using existing information, not changing from one kind into another kind.

Exploring Ape-Man & Adam - Lecture by Dr. Todd Wood, Biologist

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

Sorry, he doesn't SHOW that those skulls all fall into distinctive groups of humans or apes, he ASSERTS those skulls all fall into distinctive groups of humans or apes.

And in spite of how "easy" this classification is supposed to be, creationists are not consistent in making the alternate choices between fossil specimens.

Telling apes from humans

 

[NobleMouse]

Sorry, he doesn't SHOW that those skulls all fall into distinctive groups of humans or apes, he ASSERTS those skulls all fall into distinctive groups of humans or apes.

Good call-out, he asserts the skulls fall into distinctive groups. If there are mainstream scientists doing a more comprehensive analysis of skulls than Dr. Todd Wood (400+ individual metrics measured on each skull), I'll entertain reading the article/watching the video.

And in spite of how "easy" this classification is supposed to be, creationists are not consistent in making the alternate choices between fossil specimens.

Telling apes from humans

What I took away from the video of Dr. Wood was that classification is not simple or easy on the surface, but can be more accurately be done when testing against many metrics (not just a few). Wood's research shows that characteristics like braincase size does not by itself distinguish human - after all if we look at the world's smallest woman alive today (Jyoti Amge) we can clearly see that her head is significantly smaller than that of an average-sized adult human, yet she thinks like a human, acts like a human - is in fact 100% human.

All that aside, remember that one can justifiably accept that humans have always been humans solely on the basis of faith in God's word found in the Bible through the account of creation... this is Christian Forums after all - it would seem uncharitable to critique a worldview that is based upon what the Bible states, especially here. That said, there is no shortage of evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . .All that aside, remember that one can justifiably accept that humans have always been humans solely on the basis of faith in God's word found in the Bible through the account of creation... this is Christian Forums after all - it would seem uncharitable to critique a worldview that is based upon what the Bible states, especially here. That said, there is no shortage of evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

If you mean there is "no shortage" of evidence disputing the history of evolution of life, it has been strangely absent in these discussions. The idea that God's creation itself can, when examined, shed light on how the Bible should be interpreted is an idea that should be more widely shared and accepted by God's people, and is perfectly appropriate to be shared in this forum.

Since evolution happened, interpretations of God's word that deny evolution are clearly in error. This in turn sheds light on how to understand what the Yoms ("days") of Genesis 1 are.

 

[NobleMouse]

If you mean there is "no shortage" of evidence disputing the history of evolution of life, it has been strangely absent in these discussions. The idea that God's creation itself can, when examined, shed light on how the Bible should be interpreted is an idea that should be more widely shared and accepted by God's people, and is perfectly appropriate to be shared in this forum.

The initial direction of the post was more of a theological discussion, refuting evolution on a theological basis (not physical evidence); however, if you're interested in evidence then the link I gave to Dr. Todd Wood's discussion on ape-men is one place to start. Other sources are AiG (Answers in Genesis), ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and CMI (Creation Ministries International). My bet is you are already familiar with these organizations and do not accept their interpretations of evidence, but thought I would share for those who may be interested:

Is Genesis History?
Answers in Genesis
http://www.icr.org/
https://creation.com/

Since evolution happened, interpretations of God's word that deny evolution are clearly in error. This in turn sheds light on how to understand what the Yoms ("days") of Genesis 1 are.

There definitely are some such as Biologos, Hugh Ross, Old Earth Ministries and those that a lean this direction that would agree with the 'age' interpretation of yom in Genesis 1. The issue that many see with this interpretation is that it creates a number of difficulties within scripture that otherwise do not exist, including (but not limited to) the following:

1) Linguistic study indicates the usage/context of yom in Genesis 1 supports a 24-hr day. Detailed research article: http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html
A lengthy read, but just skipping down to the conclusion:
"This paper investigated the meaning of creation "days." It has considered key arguments in favor of a figurative, non-literal meaning of the creation "days." It found them to be wanting on the basis of genre investigation, literary considerations, grammatical study, syntactical usages, and semantic connections. The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yom, "day," in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day."

2) Read what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4; can't be male and female in the beginning if evolved from single-celled organisms.

3) If yom means a long-age how does one suppose Moses was able to accurately communicate God's 4th commandment of remembering the Sabbath and to keep it holy? When is the Sabbath?

4) Building on #3, a 7-day week has no meaning for time keeping - it is not used to define how long it takes the moon to orbit the earth, or the earth to orbit the sun, has not bearing in defining a "month", etc... It's only relevance is in the context of creation where we are to work 6 days and rest on the 7th, keeping it in holy dedication to the Lord.

5) Evolution suggests people have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (and in some human-like form for a couple million years), but the yom of the creation of Adam and Eve was day 6, and we have a lineage from Adam to Christ and the written record confirms reasonably accurately when Christ existed relative to the present... way too short of a time span compared to the time span given by evolution.

I will limit my responses to the 5 above. As indicated in the linked article by Dr. Gerhard Hasel from #1, the majority of arguments for a non-literal view of yom are mainly rooted in the paradigm shift that occurred within mainstream science during the 18th century, often with references to Augustine and a few contemporary liberal theologians in an attempt to support this view. Doing so; however, necessitates redefining many other scriptures along the way, including what Jesus himself says to create an alternate history and an alternate 'truth'.

By contrast, below is an article from Biologos on the days of creation:
http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis...esis-and-geology-at-yale-the-days-of-creation
Didn't see a ton of references to theological sources - in fact, the article starts with the views of two naturalistic-minded scientists from history - more anecdotal in nature rather than an in-depth study of the Bible and no explanations for overcoming any of the difficulties mentioned above (though I do understand the thrust of the article may not have been intended to address the incompatibilities) - not very compelling as an argument for asserting that the Bible affirms the long ages needed by evolution.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

2) Read what Jesus said in Matthew 19:4; can't be male and female in the beginning if evolved from single-celled organisms.

See, posts like this show the person posting them isn't really using arguments to find out the truth, but is rather constructing arguments artificially to make his own point.

Because every student of evolution will tell you that by the time anything came along that could possibly be called human, the structures of sex . . . male and female . . . had long been established.

So evolution in would never disagree with the statement In the beginning, humans were made male and female . . . ( ) true? ( ) false?

We would all check true.

Yet here you are claiming we would say otherwise.

And that is how you judge science all up and down the line, it is why science fails in your eyes. You make it fail.