Theistic Evolution

[Jedi]

The problem with theistic evolution is that natural selection requires death. If death did not exist until the Fall, then we could not have macroevolved from lesser primates.

Quite right, but I have reason to believe that death did exist before the fall. The evidence is pretty clear that dinosaurs lived prior to humans and a good number of them had some pretty sharp teeth, even leaving marks in some of the other dinosaur remains. Munch much. Yet the dinosaurs died off long before humans arrived on the scene.

Perhaps the "death" being spoken of in Genesis after eating the forbidden fruit was (a) of a spiritual nature or (b) both physical and spiritual but only applicable toward humans. Just a thought.

 

[DailyBlessings]

well scripture says that insects and reptiles didn't come allong in the boat,only animals that couldn't survive a year long flood came on the boat. Every type of species were not present. Think about it. Wolves ,foxes,coyotes etc... couldn't have came from an original dog type? or would evolving be easier to believe?

Actually, yes. Wolves, foxes, and coyotes evolving from one ancestor over the course of millions of years is far easier to believe than the same happening in only five thousand. For that to have occurred would require a far more radical and physically implausible view of genetic change than biologists would currently suggest. For a housecat to give birth to a cougar, tiger, and lion would require a leap far greater than that required by evolutionary theory.

 

[KillerV]

Actually, yes. Wolves, foxes, and coyotes evolving from one ancestor over the course of millions of years is far easier to believe than the same happening in only five thousand. For that to have occurred would require a far more radical and physically implausible view of genetic change than biologists would currently suggest. For a housecat to give birth to a cougar, tiger, and lion would require a leap far greater than that required by evolutionary theory.

you have far greater faith then I then. Its been over 4 thousand years since the flood, you really don't think diversification of a variety of animals could have happened in that time? instead ppl would rather believe evolution over a period of millions and millions of years....from kelp to cheetah...

 

[KillerV]

Quite right, but I have reason to believe that death did exist before the fall. The evidence is pretty clear that dinosaurs lived prior to humans and a good number of them had some pretty sharp teeth, even leaving marks in some of the other dinosaur remains. Munch much. Yet the dinosaurs died off long before humans arrived on the scene.

Perhaps the "death" being spoken of in Genesis after eating the forbidden fruit was (a) of a spiritual nature or (b) both physical and spiritual but only applicable toward humans. Just a thought.

apparently you have not read Job

 

[Jedi]

apparently you have not read Job

I'm presuming you're referring to the Behemoth, but you must understand that Job is poetry. To take literally what is meant metaphorically is just as bad a mistake as to take metaphorically what was meant literally. I'll take solid scientific evidence over a literal understanding of a book of poetry any day.

 

[KillerV]

I'm presuming you're referring to the Behemoth, but you must understand that Job is poetry. To take literally what is meant metaphorically is just as bad a mistake as to take metaphorically what was meant literally. I'll take solid scientific evidence over a literal understanding of a book of poetry any day.

are you joking? Job 40:15-24 describes a Apatosaurus perfectly. If dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature? O wait its poetry......

 

[Jedi]

are you joking? Job 40:15-24 describes a Apatosaurus perfectly. If dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature? O wait its poetry......

I’m sorry to say that the descriptions of this creature are rather vague. The description is likely to be a hippopotamus or elephant (the “tail” could also be translated as its trunk). Do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because a particular description happens to match some known ancient creature does not mean it could not possibly reference something else – a much more likely candidate that doesn’t run into scientific problems.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I heard a good explanation about the Ark: interdimensional storage space. Like Merlin's bag in The Sword in the Stone.

"Hockity pockety wockity wack . . . "

 

[DragnGT]

I am a Young Earth Creationist. I never accepted the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old even when I was younger. I have many reasons why but that's not what I want to share.

I realized that most of us have spent years in the public school system learning about evolution and we try to make what we are told is correct match our belief in God, the Bible and the Creation. So I started to learn as much about Creation as possible from Christian scientists. The government never tells us the entire truth. Government funded science projects don't either. I remember my parents telling me how their desk could save them from a nuclear attack.

Anyway. I wanted to share a website to help people who want to learn more about Creation Science.

www.drdino.com

Dr. Kent Hovind lives in P'cola, Fl. where I lived a few years ago and I got to see his presentation. He has a 7 disc DVD set (17hrs long) that I think is a great stepping stone for anyone just learning or even somewhat knowledgeable about Creation Science. If you want something more indept from him he has some college level courses (CS101,102,103,104) along with a growing debate library of like 20 DVDs.

I’m sorry to say that the descriptions of this creature are rather vague. The description is likely to be a hippopotamus or elephant (the “tail” could also be translated as its trunk). Do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because a particular description happens to match some known ancient creature does not mean it could not possibly reference something else – a much more likely candidate that doesn’t run into scientific problems.

Job is poetic? The part when he looses his family, he's talking to the three men around him or when God asked him where he was when He laid the foundations of the earth?

Elephants and hippos don't have tails like cedar trees. They're more like a small branch. Oh, and do not make the mistake of thinking that simply because a particular description doesn't happen to describe an animal that you are familiar with does not mean it could not possibly reference something that you are not familiar with.

 

[Jedi]

Job is poetic? The part when he looses his family, he's talking to the three men around him or when God asked him where he was when He laid the foundations of the earth?

It tells a story but in a poetic fashion. Look at the literary style itself – it’s as clear as day.

Elephants and hippos don't have tails like cedar trees.

I wouldn’t rest on that so literally. We’re talking about imagery and symbolism here, not a science description. Some suggest “tail” refers to the trunk of an elephant, but in all probability the word is being used as a euphemism, referring to the male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" [some translations "thighs," the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"]. It’s also interesting to note that one of the Russian words for hippopotomus is “behemoth.”

Further still, "a cursory knowledge of apatosaurus dentition shows that, though it was most definitely herbivorous, this dinosaur could not and did not "eateth grass like an ox" for two reasons: 1) grasses were not yet found in the apatosurus's environment and 2) apatosurus had needle-shaped teeth best suited for stripping leaves off of branches" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth).

This is presuming, of course, that the behemoth mentioned here is a real animal at all and not a symbolic metaphor.

 

[JacobHall86]

working on something, check back.

 

[Mandrake]

One would also note that Kent Hovind is not a doctor of anything. His degree comes from an institution with no accreditation, and thus has all of the value of one that I print off myself. He is, however, very good at sprinkling enough science into his evangelism to convince people who don't actually know anything about the issues at hand.

 

[JacobHall86]

If God wanted us to beleive in Thiestic Evolution why wouldnt he have wrote that in the Bible? Why have teh creation story instead?

 

[Jedi]

If God wanted us to beleive in Thiestic Evolution why wouldnt he have wrote that in the Bible? Why have teh creation story instead?

The primary reason is that the Bible is not a science book. That's not its purpose. Scripture uses the worldview of the biblical authors to communicate principles concerning spiritual truth. Phrases like the "four corners of the earth" are a good example of this. This is not to say there are inaccuracies but that God wanted to convey a particular message to a people without muddying the waters with unnecessary science trivia that could derail the audience's focus from the points being made.

 

[JacobHall86]

So the Bible is dumbed down?

 

[Jedi]

So the Bible is dumbed down?

Not quite. It just doesn't bother to go into detail explaining scientific facts that would distract from the spiritual facts God is presenting. Thus scripture just communicates spiritual truths by means of the biblical authors' world views. If we wanted to use scripture as a science text book, we run into problems everywhere, from referring to the earth as having four corners (Revelation 20:8) to stating the rabbit chews its cud (Lev. 11:6) and so forth.

 

[JacobHall86]

So what is the point of the Creation story?

 

[Jedi]

So what is the point of the Creation story?

To explain, through the authors' world view, that God created the world intentionally and precisely, even in steps, showing great care for His creation. The Bible has plenty of meaning without trying to force it to be a science text book.

 

[JacobHall86]

Why should the salvation story be any differant than that?

 

[Jedi]

Why should the salvation story be any differant than that?

Because the literary style different from the creation account in Genesis and Job and is corresponded to in the epistles as historical pros, which is nearly always taken literally. Even so, whenever references are made to nature or science, it is through the authors' world view.