Theistic Evolution?

[miamited]

hi again,

you responded: Jesus told parables that were fictional stories designed to teach a spiritual concept.

I absolutely agree.

You continued: The Psalms and Proverbs are full of poetic readings that convey truth through an exaggerated poetic style. Many scholars believe that the entire book of Job is a narrative poem to explain God's sovereignty in the midst of human suffering.

Is that what you believe? No man named Job ever existed? That the psalms and proverbs are 'exaggerated poetic style'? Is that what you believe? Does that also mean that you don't believe Satan ever spoke face to face with his creator and defied him to allow a man by the name of Job to fall into his hands? But, no, it's all just some allegorical story.

You wrote: 2 Timothy tells us that all Scripture is "God breathed". Better minds than us have debated what that means. However, it is pretty clear that God did not take pen to papyrus and write out Scripture.

Of course not, and if you continue to read you find that God's word clearly explains how this process came about. The thoughts of what to write were given to them through the inspiration of God's Spirit. They were led by he very Spirit of God in the very words and subject matter that they would write. Jesus tells us the same thing was going to happen to his disciples. That the Holy Spirit would 'bring to their remembrance' all the things that he had said and done among them. By this understanding we know that all of the gospel accounts were written from a mind that was remembering just what the Holy Spirit wanted them to remember to write. And how amazing that he, the Holy Spirit, didn't give them all the exact same memories to remember.

Now, you write much about 'bible scholars' and trust me on this. I can find just as many of those who support my belief as you can find that support yours, so we should certainly understand that we need to be very careful who we deem 'bible scholars'. Surely you remember the man named Nicodemus. To the Jews one of the Pharisees and by that he would be held up as a great 'bible scholar'. But to Jesus, he didn't have a clue. Surely you've read the Scriptural account of Jesus declaring all the woes on the teachers and scribes who, to the Jews would have been great 'bible scholars', but to Jesus, didn't have a clue. So hopefully you can see that just attaching 'bible scholar' to some position that you believe doesn't make it the truth.

You were offended and wrote: To be honest, it is statements like this that make me wonder if a civil discussion can be had on the topic. I'd really rather not try to impute ulterior motives to people who disagree with me. Let's try to to discuss principles and not personalities or motives.

Again I ask you. What if God did do all of the creating of this realm in six days. He repeated it for you at least three times in the Scriptures and you aren't going to believe it. Perhaps you'd fill in another word that is more acceptable to you than wilfull rebellion, but let's not get side-tracked on what you think, let's be more concerned with what God thinks. He did it! He told you repeatedly that He did it and you refuse to believe it. What do you call it? I'm perfectly happy to fill in whatever word you'd like me to use here.

You responded to the six day account thusly: Fair enough. And, some of us don't pretend to know that answer with absolute certainty.

Yes, and my contention is that that is exactly why God gave so many clues and outright told us repeatedly, 'In six days I created the heavens and the earth...' And, for me, it just begs the queston. Why not? God has told you at least three times in His revelation to you that came from His Holy Spirit unto men to be written down that He created this entire realm of creation in six days. Why are you adamant that He neither gave us clear indications nor are willing to believe what He has said to you? Why not?

continued

 

[miamited]

Yet, I am unaware of a single place in Scripture where it is even hinted at that we are judged according to our doctrine on any matter other than the lordship of the resurrected Christ.

Here try this: "Watch out for false prophets.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 By their fruit you will recognize them.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 will enter the kingdom of heaven,http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 Many will say to me on that day,http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20

Notice the warning. 'Watch out for false prophets!" Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter te kingdom of heaven. Now, if someone is calling Jesus Lord, wouldn't it be understood that they thought they had made Jesus Lord of their life? And of course, this falls back on just what I've been teaching. What does God really expect those who claim to be under the lordship of Jesus, to believe? Is it just the basics or does He, as He seems to have asked us through His servant Paul, expect us to mature in our faith and understanding of His truth? And if He does expect us to grow from our point of initial faith to understand the deeper things of His truth, wouldn't it seem fairly logical that He wants us to believe something He has said three times in His revelation of himself to us?

Yes, yes, I'm often confronted by the allegorical and mystical crowd and while I certainly agree that there are some few places within the Scriptures that we find allegory, specifically the teachings of Jesus through parables, which you may be interested in knowing that Jesus claimed to speak in parables so that those who couldn't see, still couldn't see, I don't find many other places that allegory is the rule of God's written genre of transmission to us. Certainly no reason to believe that the account of the beginning of all things would be allegorical. Why? What on earth would be God's purpose. If you are as wise in the things of God as you seem to think, then tell me. Why is God telling us how He created all things as an allegory. Why isn't He just telling us the truth. And please, please don't come back with that claim that, 'Oh well it was written by uneducated, unscientific men.' NO!!!!! All that is contained in the Scriptures comes to us from the one who knows absolutely everything about everything. He knows everything the wisest scientist claims to know and then billions upon billions of additional factoids of truth and it was this God that caused to be written, 'In the beginning...'

Finally you responded: This would be a fair argument if it could be concluded that God never spoke in allegory, fictional narrative, poetry, hyperbole, or any non-historical literary genre. Scripture demonstrates to me that the presupposition is flawed. But, I respect that fact that you disagree.

Why? Why can't it be a fair argument even if there are some few occassions where God used allegory, fictional narrative (which as far as I can find is also only in the parables), poetry (and I don't know why poetry can't be the truth), hyperbole (you'd have to give me some examples of that), or non-historical literary genre (again, I don't find that to be widely used in the Scriptures other than the parables. Perhaps you'd be willing to give me some non parabolic examples of all of these genres and where you find them used in the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dies-l]

Yet, I am unaware of a single place in Scripture where it is even hinted at that we are judged according to our doctrine on any matter other than the lordship of the resurrected Christ.

Here try this: "Watch out for false prophets.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 By their fruit you will recognize them.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 will enter the kingdom of heaven,http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 Many will say to me on that day,http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/7.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20

Notice the warning. 'Watch out for false prophets!" Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter te kingdom of heaven. Now, if someone is calling Jesus Lord, wouldn't it be understood that they thought they had made Jesus Lord of their life? And of course, this falls back on just what I've been teaching. What does God really expect those who claim to be under the lordship of Jesus, to believe? Is it just the basics or does He, as He seems to have asked us through His servant Paul, expect us to mature in our faith and understanding of His truth? And if He does expect us to grow from our point of initial faith to understand the deeper things of His truth, wouldn't it seem fairly logical that He wants us to believe something He has said three times in His revelation of himself to us?

Yes, yes, I'm often confronted by the allegorical and mystical crowd and while I certainly agree that there are some few places within the Scriptures that we find allegory, specifically the teachings of Jesus through parables, which you may be interested in knowing that Jesus claimed to speak in parables so that those who couldn't see, still couldn't see, I don't find many other places that allegory is the rule of God's written genre of transmission to us. Certainly no reason to believe that the account of the beginning of all things would be allegorical. Why? What on earth would be God's purpose. If you are as wise in the things of God as you seem to think, then tell me. Why is God telling us how He created all things as an allegory. Why isn't He just telling us the truth. And please, please don't come back with that claim that, 'Oh well it was written by uneducated, unscientific men.' NO!!!!! All that is contained in the Scriptures comes to us from the one who knows absolutely everything about everything. He knows everything the wisest scientist claims to know and then billions upon billions of additional factoids of truth and it was this God that caused to be written, 'In the beginning...'

Finally you responded: This would be a fair argument if it could be concluded that God never spoke in allegory, fictional narrative, poetry, hyperbole, or any non-historical literary genre. Scripture demonstrates to me that the presupposition is flawed. But, I respect that fact that you disagree.

Why? Why can't it be a fair argument even if there are some few occassions where God used allegory, fictional narrative (which as far as I can find is also only in the parables), poetry (and I don't know why poetry can't be the truth), hyperbole (you'd have to give me some examples of that), or non-historical literary genre (again, I don't find that to be widely used in the Scriptures other than the parables. Perhaps you'd be willing to give me some non parabolic examples of all of these genres and where you find them used in the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I will accept the increasingly hostile tone that you are exhibiting as an invitation to step away from this discussion. If you want to believe that I am "rebelling" or "calling God a liar" because I disagree with you, you are entitled to that position. God and I know that you are mistaken in your assessment. If you ever want to have a civil discussion about the hermeneutics of origins theology, I would be happy to oblige. If you want to belittle my faith because I disagree with you, you will need to find someone else to play that game with you.

God bless.

 

[Gozreht]

The only problem with this analysis is that it presupposes a literal-historical hermeneutic. To apply this hermenutic to the first 3 chapters of Genesis and arguably to the first 11 chapters brings to light several problems of its own. For example, a literal-historical hermeneutic is inconsistent with the genre and writing style of this portion of Scripture. Furthermore, it is impossible to develop a coherent and consistent understanding of this portion of Genesis if one insists on this hermeneutic approach. Like any writing, ancient or modern, the proper approach to biblical interpretation looks not only to the text, but also to context, genre, and other factors. This is something that would be mentioned on the first day of any hermeneutics class in any accredited seminary (liberal or conservative), even those that insist upon a YEC view of creation.

Actually Genesis is inconsistent in every section. Genesis is not very fluent. Perhaps this is because we are stuck in the thought (which may be correct) that it was written by one person throughout. That may not be accurate. We call it a book of Moses only by tradition. It may have been written by Adam, Job, Eve, Sarah, or a Joe Schmo. So to say that hermeneutics play a part in this may not be the best thing to do. That aside, Genesis was split by man into chapters. It may be three or four books or letters put together that may not have been originally. And aside that each section tells its own story anyway. The first chapter tells about creation of the world. The next couple of chapters are about the how man reacted with the creation. They are not neccessarily connected. But I will agree that you can believe in evolution and have a Bible but it would be like reading a math book to try and read a map. They both have numbers and you would need some kind of calculation but they are not 100% complimentary.

 

[Gozreht]

I don't think God would create all this evidence of a very ancient earth, such as measurable sedimentary levels, fossils of various stages of earth spread across those sedimentary layers and plate movements as "tests of faith". If all animals in the fossil records existed in the same 6,000 years, they would ALL befound in the same sediment layers with old human bones, which are also seperated by layers of earth depending on age.

We don't know that for sure. We only see the aftermath and have to fill in the missing pieces. If many of these animals died in the flood and God changed the topography during those months under water then many of the animals would be on a different layer. God did change the topography because Noah landed on the highest mountain (ararat,hmm....not everest?) God still was changing things even after the flood.

The universe can be "reversed" through mathmatics to a point in time where all matter and galaxies compress down to a single point... where everything sprang from nothing, so I don't see at this point why a supernatural or higher dimensional being such as God couldn't have done something like that.

Agreed! There was a big bang! Read my comments on page 3. But the timing is the question. The time of man is definitely 6000 years. The age of the universe is the question. I have a friend who says 6 days is 6 days and 15 billion years. He uses Theory of relativity to prove his point. Once the big bang happened things were moving very fast away from the "center of the universe". Well as things move faster time slows down. So in a 24 hour period the first things that were created had moved 8 billion light years away. As things moved away they also slowed down. So the 2nd 24 hour period the first things that were created had moved only 4 billion light years away. And so forth. By the time the 6th day had happened those things ended up being 15 billion light years away which is consistent with evolutionary study. And now we sit in the 7th day since no more have been created (and God rested). He thinks we are waiting for the 7th day to end. It's plausible this is correct and it's the only way I would believe it but it doesn't hold all the water he thinks it does.

Just as God created Adam as an adult, speaking and thinking on his own, He created the universe and all its laws already in place.

 

[dies-l]

Actually Genesis is inconsistent in every section. Genesis is not very fluent. Perhaps this is because we are stuck in the thought (which may be correct) that it was written by one person throughout. That may not be accurate. We call it a book of Moses only by tradition. It may have been written by Adam, Job, Eve, Sarah, or a Joe Schmo.

Fair enough.

So to say that hermeneutics play a part in this may not be the best thing to do.

Hermeneutics always plays a part. When you ask questions like "who wrote Genesis?" or "how does the authorship of Genesis affect our interpretation of it?", you are engaging in hermeneutics. When another person says that Genesis is a coherent work of historical narrative that is to be interpreted a literal historical account, that person is engaging in hermeneutics. When I say that the evidence suggests that this interpretative methodology may be inappropriate for at least portions of the book of Genesis, I am engaging in hermenutics. Hermeneutics is not the problem. But, some interpretations are more fitting than others. And, the difference of opinion between YECs and TEs is largely in determining how these passages ought to be interpreted.

That aside, Genesis was split by man into chapters. It may be three or four books or letters put together that may not have been originally. And aside that each section tells its own story anyway. The first chapter tells about creation of the world. The next couple of chapters are about the how man reacted with the creation. They are not neccessarily connected. But I will agree that you can believe in evolution and have a Bible but it would be like reading a math book to try and read a map. They both have numbers and you would need some kind of calculation but they are not 100% complimentary.

But, for a person who accepts a less literal interpretative methodology, they need not be 100% complementary. Genesis presents a theological account that explains the sovereignty of God over Creation. Evolution presents a scientific and historical account of how all species that now exist came to be. The former, as I understand it, does not comment on the mechanical process of how God created. The latter, as I understand it, does not comment on whether God had a hand in it. The important thing is not whether they are perfectly complementary, but rather whether or not they directly contradict.

YECs generally say yes.
TEs generally say no.

 

[Gozreht]

Hermeneutics always plays a part. When you ask questions like "who wrote Genesis?" or "how does the authorship of Genesis affect our interpretation of it?", you are engaging in hermeneutics. When another person says that Genesis is a coherent work of historical narrative that is to be interpreted a literal historical account, that person is engaging in hermeneutics. When I say that the evidence suggests that this interpretative methodology may be inappropriate for at least portions of the book of Genesis, I am engaging in hermenutics. Hermeneutics is not the problem. But, some interpretations are more fitting than others. And, the difference of opinion between YECs and TEs is largely in determining how these passages ought to be interpreted...

But, for a person who accepts a less literal interpretative methodology, they need not be 100% complementary. Genesis presents a theological account that explains the sovereignty of God over Creation. Evolution presents a scientific and historical account of how all species that now exist came to be. The former, as I understand it, does not comment on the mechanical process of how God created. The latter, as I understand it, does not comment on whether God had a hand in it. The important thing is not whether they are perfectly complementary, but rather whether or not they directly contradict.

Yes, I was not clear on what I was meaning. My point was that we can't compare the first part of Genesis with the rest, perhaps even with the second chapter. One chapter may be literal while the others may be symbollic. I think they are literal as possible, so to me that doesn't come into question. Does evoultion contradict with creation? It could fit in with God's mighty works. But many of the aspects that scientists bring into the argument spit into the face of God and DO contradict the Bible. Such as, just for an example, science says that the sun was created first and the earth created afterwards. We read in the scripture that the earth was first. Here is a point I always try and make. Evolution tries to use the present to explain the past, therefore they go backwards and tries to get science to fill in the blanks. Creation starts at the beginning and explain where we are now, allowing science to to actually fill in the blanks for real.

Fish turn into reptiles that turn into mammals is evolution. Fish created first, then reptiles, then mammals is creation. They coincide, but which is more accurate? Creation. Because He brought teams of fish in existence. It doesn't say that He turned things into fish and so forth. The word "created" does not mean transform.

I hope my words do not seem harsh. Not my intention.

 

[dies-l]

Yes, I was not clear on what I was meaning. My point was that we can't compare the first part of Genesis with the rest, perhaps even with the second chapter. One chapter may be literal while the others may be symbollic. I think they are literal as possible, so to me that doesn't come into question. Does evoultion contradict with creation? It could fit in with God's mighty works. But many of the aspects that scientists bring into the argument spit into the face of God and DO contradict the Bible. Such as, just for an example, science says that the sun was created first and the earth created afterwards. We read in the scripture that the earth was first. Here is a point I always try and make. Evolution tries to use the present to explain the past, therefore they go backwards and tries to get science to fill in the blanks. Creation starts at the beginning and explain where we are now, allowing science to to actually fill in the blanks for real.

Fish turn into reptiles that turn into mammals is evolution. Fish created first, then reptiles, then mammals is creation. They coincide, but which is more accurate? Creation. Because He brought teams of fish in existence. It doesn't say that He turned things into fish and so forth. The word "created" does not mean transform.

I hope my words do not seem harsh. Not my intention.

To be completely honest, it sound as though you don't really understand evolutionary theory. Perhaps that is part of the confusion here.

 

[sealacamp]

To be completely honest, it sound as though you don't really understand evolutionary theory. Perhaps that is part of the confusion here.

I do but therein lies the problem, it is a theory and can't be proven. However creation is a theory as well and can't be proven either. Either one must be accepted on faith. So do we have faith in God or faith in what some person conjured up? Do we believe Gods word or do we go along with what someone else dreamed reality to be? Everyone must decide for themselves what they choose to believe. One thing is certain one choice is the truth and the other deception. I can't decide for anyone else but I can decide for me and I choose to believe God and follow along with Him for anything less than that will not turn out good in the end.

Sealacamp

 

[Barefooter]

I would just like to add that for those who believe in evolution, does that mean creation was too hard for God? Absolutely not. But I do believe that creatures adapt to there envirement. That's not evolution. When the bible says that God created the animals and even let Adam name them, that's exactly what happened. Don't bring God down and say that he needed help from evolution. There is absolutely nothing too hard for God. So if the bible says God Created the world and man and creatures, that's exactly what I believe.

 

[dies-l]

I do but therein lies the problem, it is a theory and can't be proven. However creation is a theory as well and can't be proven either. Either one must be accepted on faith. So do we have faith in God or faith in what some person conjured up? Do we believe Gods word or do we go along with what someone else dreamed reality to be? Everyone must decide for themselves what they choose to believe. One thing is certain one choice is the truth and the other deception. I can't decide for anyone else but I can decide for me and I choose to believe God and follow along with Him for anything less than that will not turn out good in the end.

Sealacamp

Not much can be "proven" with absolute certainty. But,ic the evidence points very strongly towards a certain conclusion, a reasonsable person accepts that conclusion unless and until the evidence supports a different conclusion. I believe that the scientific evidence points convincingly to evolution. I also believe that the biblical evidence provides absolutely no reason to reject this evidence on theological grounds.

Please note that almost everything we know about the universe is "just a theory". A theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that has been consistently supported by scientific evidence.

 

[dies-l]

I would just like to add that for those who believe in evolution, does that mean creation was too hard for God? Absolutely not. But I do believe that creatures adapt to there envirement. That's not evolution. When the bible says that God created the animals and even let Adam name them, that's exactly what happened. Don't bring God down and say that he needed help from evolution. There is absolutely nothing too hard for God. So if the bible says God Created the world and man and creatures, that's exactly what I believe.

W
Who said that anyone believes that creation is to hard for God? To say that I don't believe guts God created in the precise way that you believe that he did does not imply that I don't believe that He is capable of doing so. Did God "need help from evolution"? No. Did God use evolution to bring about his ultimate plan? Very possibly yes.

 

[Gozreht]

It's not like I picked up a book for the first time and saw the word evolution and then googled it. I am 40 years old. I have been around a long time and have had many discussions/debates/studies on this subject. I am a teacher by profession. I have access to many people on this subject. I know it well. All I did was point out the holes in it. I was not writing the textbook on it. You didn't read all of my material I have posted. If you answer this question then I can let you know how much I know...At what point did you feel that I do not grasp this concept?

 

[Paul 5]

As God is my witness, if I actually saw the evidence for macroevolution to be true I would accept it as true. For me the most convincing evidence against macroevolution is the 6000 years of isolated breeding of the horse without a single new species being developed. What man has done with the horse is the same thing as natural selection in nature,however because the selection was guilded by the mind and ability of man,it has progressed far beyond anything nature could ever produce,yet without a single new species...we are speaking of billions of selective breeding with isolation to allow for a new species...yet no new species,so for me the other arguments are like trying to prove an airplane cannot fly,the evidence is right in front of us and obvious,so why spend all that time beating your head against a brick wall,macroevolution is simply not true because of the physical evidence.

 

[dies-l]

It's not like I picked up a book for the first time and saw the word evolution and then googled it. I am 40 years old. I have been around a long time and have had many discussions/debates/studies on this subject. I am a teacher by profession. I have access to many people on this subject. I know it well. All I did was point out the holes in it. I was not writing the textbook on it. You didn't read all of my material I have posted. If you answer this question then I can let you know how much I know...At what point did you feel that I do not grasp this concept?

You said that evolution is "fish turn into reptiles and reptiles turn into mammals". This is a common misconception from people who don't understand evolution. Evolutionary theory does not say that at all. A fish will always be a fish, but according to evolutionary theory, its offspring may have slightly different traits and that with each generation these new traits lead to offspring that are less and less similar to the fish ancestor that we statrted with. This much is usually accepted even by creationists. However, evolutionists believe that eventually the descendants may differ so much from the ancestor as to no longer have the traits that make define the ancestor's species. And over time this leads to greater and greater diversity. This is much different than what you said evolution proposes.

 

[dies-l]

As God is my witness, if I actually saw the evidence for macroevolution to be true I would accept it as true. For me the most convincing evidence against macroevolution is the 6000 years of isolated breeding of the horse without a single new species being developed. What man has done with the horse is the same thing as natural selection in nature,however because the selection was guilded by the mind and ability of man,it has progressed far beyond anything nature could ever produce,yet without a single new species...we are speaking of billions of selective breeding with isolation to allow for a new species...yet no new species,so for me the other arguments are like trying to prove an airplane cannot fly,the evidence is right in front of us and obvious,so why spend all that time beating your head against a brick wall,macroevolution is simply not true because of the physical evidence.

I can respect that even thoughi disagree with your logic. My concern is more about whether there is a compelling biblical reason to reject evolution.

 

[Paul 5]

W
Who said that anyone believes that creation is to hard for God? To say that I don't believe guts God created in the precise way that you believe that he did does not imply that I don't believe that He is capable of doing so. Did God "need help from evolution"? No. Did God use evolution to bring about his ultimate plan? Very possibly yes.

What is called microevolution,yes,that is something that God created to provide for life to be able to continue. Macroevolution,no,the horse was created a horse and continues to this day to be a horse,man was created a man and continues to this day to be man.

 

[Paul 5]

I can respect that even thoughi disagree with your logic. My concern is more about whether there is a compelling biblical reason to reject evolution.

You are taking it from another perspective(bible). I believe in God,however I accept what the evidence presents, I see the evolutionary process of natural selection with the horse influenced in an enormous way by the hand of man, if macroevolution were occuring then certainly the horse would have provided us evidence by producing a new species after billions of breedings and isolations. This is simple clear evidence,people try to make this complex in order to muddy the water because they do not want to accept what they see.

 

[dies-l]

You are taking it from another perspective(bible). I believe in God,however I accept what the evidence presents, I see the evolutionary process of natural selection with the horse influenced in an enormous way by the hand of man, if macroevolution were occuring then certainly the horse would have provided us evidence by producing a new species after billions of breedings and isolations. This is simple clear evidence,people try to make this complex in order to muddy the water because they do not want to accept what they see.

I also believe that there is plenty of compelling evidence for evolution. I just don't want to confuse two equally important but very different questions in the debate.

 

[John S]

Dies-l - I THINK that you and I agree.
The "Artist" painted the picture. It has taken many millions, or possibly billions, of years (which would be each successive "Day" in God's eye) - and continues to this day.

I also believe that the FIRST Biblical prophecy has yet to occur.
...and on the 7th Day, God rested.