There is no basis for conflict with Evolution.

[Enoch7]

There is no basis for conflict between evolution and Christianity. I don't know why people don't get this. It is my opinion that anyone who believes there is a conflict has never read the Bible, nor/or they don't understand it.

Want to talk about literal meaning? How about when God created the Sun on the fourth day? The FOURTH day. Obviously that means that at least the first three days could not have been in the time frame we pictured. If the very thing which we use to define night and day was not here until the fourth step in God's creation, then how can we have any bearing on what was the definition of a day was beforehand?

Not to mention that in 2nd Peter 3:8-9 it says (paraphrasing) "To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." Granted, those verses were in reference to having patience, but it still implies that God's perception of time is different than ours. Longer, at least. And I'm sure St. Peter was simply stating an arbitrarily large number, and wasn't being exact when he wrote "thousand." That "thousand" is accompanied by "like" supports my reasoning.

And since man wasn't created until the sixth day, then obviously we are dealing with God's perception of time on the first five days.

I hope that others will see this logic for what it is -- the truth. I'm a strong Christian, but it's foolhardy to make such an outlandish claim -- and to back it with little to no science only causes more issues.

Where's a Galileo when you need one?

 

[TwinCrier]

Why do you think the sun couldn't be created the fourth day? Light could certainly exist before the sun of our particular solar system, and days certainly existed before the sun as well. As you said, God's perception of time is different than ours. He doesn't need the sun or a watch to tell Him when a day has passed. Remember, God made the heaven and the Earth, not just the Earth. He made the moon and the stars as well. If He says He did it in 6 days I believe it.

It's not foolharty to believe that the bible is true.

 

[gluadys]

Why do you think the sun couldn't be created the fourth day? Light could certainly exist before the sun of our particular solar system, and days certainly existed before the sun as well. As you said, God's perception of time is different than ours. He doesn't need the sun or a watch to tell Him when a day has passed. Remember, God made the heaven and the Earth, not just the Earth. He made the moon and the stars as well. If He says He did it in 6 days I believe it.

It's not foolharty to believe that the bible is true.

Yes, light could and did exist before the sun.

But not days on earth, since day and night are defined by the turning of the earth in relation to the sun.

So any "days" in question could not be what we define as day and night. Also, scientifically, the earth did not exist before the sun. And certainly not before the stars.

So the concept of vegetation existing on earth before any star existed in the sky is completely out of synch with reality.

The earth (and sun and moon) existed for billions of years before any plants grew in any soil on earth. And stars existed for many more billions of years before the sun, earth and moon.

 

[Saucy]

Doesn't the bible recall that God created light? Genesis 1:1-3, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." So, there was indeed light before there was a sun. Also, the days in Genesis are literal days. The Hebrew word for day is "yom" which is used as a literal day and was used in Genesis while describing the days. Also, think of Adam. He was created on the 6th day, and lived through the 7th, which was God's day of rest and after the 7th day, the story of Adam continues. If what you say is true, then Adam would be over 2,000 years old, but he lived to only 900 something years.

 

[CaiperLane]

There is no basis for conflict between evolution and Christianity. I don't know why people don't get this. It is my opinion that anyone who believes there is a conflict has never read the Bible, nor/or they don't understand it.

Want to talk about literal meaning? How about when God created the Sun on the fourth day? The FOURTH day. Obviously that means that at least the first three days could not have been in the time frame we pictured. If the very thing which we use to define night and day was not here until the fourth step in God's creation, then how can we have any bearing on what was the definition of a day was beforehand?

Not to mention that in 2nd Peter 3:8-9 it says (paraphrasing) "To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." Granted, those verses were in reference to having patience, but it still implies that God's perception of time is different than ours. Longer, at least. And I'm sure St. Peter was simply stating an arbitrarily large number, and wasn't being exact when he wrote "thousand." That "thousand" is accompanied by "like" supports my reasoning.

And since man wasn't created until the sixth day, then obviously we are dealing with God's perception of time on the first five days.

I hope that others will see this logic for what it is -- the truth. I'm a strong Christian, but it's foolhardy to make such an outlandish claim -- and to back it with little to no science only causes more issues.

Where's a Galileo when you need one?

Evolution omits any chance of a personal Creator constructing the Universe. Evolution is "survival of the fittest". And the main fact that evolution claims that man evolved from Apes or Ape ancestors is completely unscriptural! It plainly states in Genesis that "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Adam was absolutely the first man whom God created. He was formed out of the dust of the earth (and hence his name), and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures (Gen. 1:26; 2:7). He was placed after his creation in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it, and to enjoy its fruits under this one prohibition: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

So the theory of Evolution does not stand up against the Word of God and the Creation account in Genesis. This is why Evolution and Christianity do not mix.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution omits any chance of a personal Creator constructing the Universe.

No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?

Evolution is not atheism and does not require an atheist frame of reference.

Evolution is "survival of the fittest".

And what does that mean? Can you define "fittest" in the context of evolution?

And the main fact that evolution claims that man evolved from Apes or Ape ancestors is completely unscriptural! It plainly states in Genesis that "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Where is the contradiction? Why is the image of God impossible in humans formed through evolution?

Adam was absolutely the first man whom God created. He was formed out of the dust of the earth (and hence his name), and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures (Gen. 1:26; 2:7). He was placed after his creation in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it, and to enjoy its fruits under this one prohibition: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Again, where is the contradiction? All of this can take place in an evolutionary context.

 

[EchelonForm]

Evolution is "survival of the fittest".

Actually this is not true, survival of the fittest is a statement that is independent of evolution.

And what does that mean? Can you define "fittest" in the context of evolution?

So this is pointless. Or maybe thats what you were getting at and you just didn't know how to word it.
And it doesn't really doesn't matter in the context of what CaiperLane was talking about. The many claims that evolution make set a contradiction in the beginning of the Bible which would set a chain reaction through out. Which would discredit who God said He Is.

Where is the contradiction? Why is the image of God impossible in humans formed through evolution?

It's not, but that god would not be the God of the Bible. (I already said why.)

Evolution does not = atheism but that certianly isn't the point. Moreover most of the people who believe in evolution do not believe in God, infact if you read some other threads here, they almost exclusively attack believes of others and do not defend evolution at all, don't go pointing your finger at people who believe in creation. This apparent "conflict" is two sided. Most Christian don't want evolution taght to there children as fact, thats the only conflict I see.

 

[CaiperLane]

No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea?

Evolution is not atheism and does not require an atheist frame of reference.



And what does that mean? Can you define "fittest" in the context of evolution?



Where is the contradiction? Why is the image of God impossible in humans formed through evolution?



Again, where is the contradiction? All of this can take place in an evolutionary context.

Your questions make me think you don't know about Darwinism and his theory of Evolution. He does not theorize that a Creator was involved in the making and shaping of the universe! It was an accident and things evolved from other species. The Bible is clear on how God created.

Check out the following website. It will give you the vast differences between the two.

http://www.creationists.org/summaryofdifferences.html

​

 

[Micaiah]

Hi Enoch7 and welcome to this forum.

I note that this is your third post and one which makes some wild, insulting claims with little Scriptural basis or sound logic for support. I guess we YEC's should be used to this kind of thing by now but personally it never fails to make me wince.

There is no basis for conflict between evolution and Christianity. I don't know why people don't get this. It is my opinion that anyone who believes there is a conflict has never read the Bible, nor/or they don't understand it.

Hardly worth a response. Enoch7 is just trying to insult those who accept that Genesis is plainly a historic account of what happened in the beginning.

Want to talk about literal meaning? How about when God created the Sun on the fourth day? The FOURTH day. Obviously that means that at least the first three days could not have been in the time frame we pictured. If the very thing which we use to define night and day was not here until the fourth step in God's creation, then how can we have any bearing on what was the definition of a day was beforehand?

If this is the best argument for your position you have obviously lead a fairly sheltered life. This point has been raised in the distant past and easily dismissed which is why you don't often see it raised now.

The following is an extract from an AIG article (1). According to the author, most of the leading orthodox Jewish scholars recognise that the word used in Genesis means a literal day. One was Ibn Ezra spoken of in the following.

I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164) from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.
In fact, in the preface it says, ‘Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student of the Bible without having studied it.’ Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal, imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological mysticism known as the Kabbala.

But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, ‘One day refers to the movement of the sphere.’ This shows that the common sceptical objection ‘how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created’ was solved in principle centuries ago. The ‘sphere’ referred to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its followers promoted a ‘flat earth’.3 But now we would say that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.

The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, ‘The heavenly sphere made one revolution. The sun was not yet ...’.4 This shows that they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day, as opposed to ‘appearing’ as many long-agers, e.g. Hugh Ross, claim. There is a perfectly good word for appear (ra’ah), e.g. when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). But it is not used here.

I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood the creation days as literal days.

In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hourof the creation of Adam on the sixth day! But here they delved way beyond the information in the text. The Talmud says, ‘In the first hour his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second it was kneaded into a shapeless mass; in the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into him …’. But on Day 6, God created all the animals and brought them to Adam to name, then created Eve (Genesis 2:18–24).

Not to mention that in 2nd Peter 3:8-9 it says (paraphrasing) "To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day." Granted, those verses were in reference to having patience, but it still implies that God's perception of time is different than ours. Longer, at least. And I'm sure St. Peter was simply stating an arbitrarily large number, and wasn't being exact when he wrote "thousand." That "thousand" is accompanied by "like" supports my reasoning.

The passage teaches that God's perception of time is different to man's. It is not intended for man to infer that wherever we see the word day in Scripture it can mean any duration you want. The words 'and the evening and the morning' make the meaning of the word abundantly clear. To me it was God pre-empting the controversy that now exists and making His intent clear.

And since man wasn't created until the sixth day, then obviously we are dealing with God's perception of time on the first five days.

So prior to man's creation we should infer God was unable to convey anything meaningful to man. Novel but not to be taken seriously.

I hope that others will see this logic for what it is -- the truth. I'm a strong Christian, but it's foolhardy to make such an outlandish claim -- and to back it with little to no science only causes more issues.

More meaningless drivel. We haven't seen any logic yet. When we do it will be considered. It is ironical that you call on us to substantiate our position scientifically when there is no attempt made on your part to do the same.

Where's a Galileo when you need one?

Where is common sense when you need it?

YEC's get impatient when we see TE's come on this forum, jump on the band wagon and start to make derisive claims about YEC's with little justification for such claims and evidence that they actually have some idea of what they are talking about. It would be interesting to have a discussion with this person and establish what they personally know about evolution and the teaching of Scripture. From what we have seen so far there is very little in the account.

1. James-Griffiths, P., Creation days and orthodox Jewish tradition, Creation 26(2):53-55, 2004

 

[Kripost]

Your questions make me think you don't know about Darwinism and his theory of Evolution. He does not theorize that a Creator was involved in the making and shaping of the universe! It was an accident and things evolved from other species. The Bible is clear on how God created.

By the same logic theory of plate tectonics implies that God does not partake in the making of mountains and trenches, which also implies that Mount Everest is the result of an accident where two 'plates' collide with each other.

Also, do take note that in science, no one theorizes that a Creator is involved in any process, e.g. lightning, nuclear fussion, oxidation.

 

[Enoch7]

If He says He did it in 6 days I believe it.

It's not foolharty to believe that the bible is true.

I never said it was. I said to make such outlandish claims and trying to back them with make-believe science is foolhardy. Take Intelligent Design for example. Intelligent Design is not science -- you can't even test it, and it's only arguments are that evolution has some errors and God said so. No one came to Intelligent Design as a solid scientific theory, it's something Christians made up to combat other (valid) scientific theories. Face it, no one would have a problem with evolution if the Bible had a different creation story. The only reason anyone believes in Intelligent Design is because of their faith -- you probably wouldn't in any other circumstance. That is not science, that's faith -- it belongs in a Church, not a labortory. And hey, I got no problem with people believing that, it's when you try to pass it off as valid science that upsets me.

Evolution omits any chance of a personal Creator constructing the Universe. Evolution is "survival of the fittest". And the main fact that evolution claims that man evolved from Apes or Ape ancestors is completely unscriptural! It plainly states in Genesis that "God created man [Heb., Adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In what way does evolution omit God? I don't know who told you that, or if that's just your personal opinion, but that's all it is -- a personal opinion. And yes, it does say in Genesis that God created man -- I'm not questioning that. I don't wonder if God created the universe, I question how. Does it explain how man was created in the Bible? Then who are you to say it wasn't evolution? It only says (paraphrasing, not a direct quote) "God created him." God made this, God did that -- it never explains HOW.

And to say that since we were created in God's image as an arguement against us evolving from apes is completely contradicting. If anything, it empowers that we came from mere apes. We were created in God's "image" in his "illussion." We weren't actually God. If we were how you defined us as in "his image" then how could we have sinned? We were not God, far from it if our end result was sin. We were simular only in image -- fantasy, not reality. We were his mere picture, not even close to being like him -- that we sinned supports this reasoning. Unless you think God is close to sin.

So any "days" in question could not be what we define as day and night. Also, scientifically, the earth did not exist before the sun. And certainly not before the stars.

So the concept of vegetation existing on earth before any star existed in the sky is completely out of synch with reality.

Exactly -- it's out of synch with reality. It never says in the Bible to take it literally, if it did then Jesus would have been a lamb. In my experience, the people who take the Bible literally are most often the ones who understand it the least. Not to say that you can't believe everything you read, but only to say that isn't the point of the Bible. When you read a story, the important thing isn't that you believe everything you read as if it could actually happen, but that you take the moral lesson from it. If you believe it, yet miss the moral teaching, what good is it to combat sin? Every story has a point. In Genesis for instance, it was that God takes credit for creating the universe, and thankfully is obscure enough to assure that we aren't supposed to look into it in-depth. That's the point of Genesis -- to know that God is responsible for life. He is the way, truth, and life, etc.

As far as faith goes, it never says you have to believe every single verse you read in the Bible, in fact it's rare that the Bible encourages that. It's usually pretty specific about what parts of the Bible to have faith in, to believe in. So to say, "I believe everything that has ever been written in the Bible" well, it isn't entirely necessary to believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. Actually the Bible is pretty malleable, it can be taken in many different ways, and still mean the same thing. And when you think about it, that's actually a good thing. It can be comprehended by the most learned or the most feeble minded. And there's a little something for everyone.

And hey, if it wasn't malleable, then why so many denominations? So obviously there are many different interpretations and opinions on it.

Myself, I don't personally "believe" there is a God -- I know there is a God. But the one thing you can't prove is God's intentions. That's what you have faith in: that God will save us. That he has saved us. There really is little else that matters in the "good book" outside God's loving lessons.

 

[Micaiah]

Not to say that you can't believe everything you read, but only to say that isn't the point of the Bible. When you read a story, the important thing isn't that you believe everything you read as if it could actually happen, but that you take the moral lesson from it.

So it doesn't really matter if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead or that Mary was a virgin when the conception of Christ occured. You can tell us the criteria you use to determine when the assertions of fact about the natural world and history are important and when they are not.

 

[CaiperLane]

And yes, it does say in Genesis that God created man -- I'm not questioning that. I don't wonder if God created the universe, I question how. Does it explain how man was created in the Bible? Then who are you to say it wasn't evolution? It only says (paraphrasing, not a direct quote) "God created him." God made this, God did that -- it never explains HOW.

It does. In detail.

Read this:

"And God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis. Chapter II.

There it is plain and simple. It may sound unreal or unbelievable to you. That I can understand. But claiming the way he made the earth and universe and then man is not described in the Bibke is false.

 

[Micaiah]

The underlying philosophy which seems to plague TE's is the concept of 'non overlapping magisteria'. In a rough form it translates to the idea that there is a divide between the physical and spiritual. They claim the Bible is reliable with regard to what it asserts about spiritual matters only, but anything relating to the natural world is suspect.

I'm interested to know where this idea comes from. Certainly not Scripture. As noted above, the historical/natural truth taught in Scripture underpins some of our most important doctrines. God did not intend to satisfy our morbid curiousity with all the details of how He created the world. No one could fully understand the explanation if He did. He did however give adequate information to recognise evolution is wrong. When He states plainly that the earth was created in six days we can trust His word. If you like Scripture sets the boundary conditions on any explanations of what may have happened in the beginning. Any that fall outside these boundaries should be rejected.

 

[shernren]

There's only really one thing on CaiperLane's site that bears noting.

Evolution: -
9. Based on atheistic philosophies of naturalism and materialism. A world view and man-made false religion

To support this site fully is tantamount to saying that all evolutionists are not Christians. Do you dare to make that claim?

 

[Critias]

There's only really one thing on CaiperLane's site that bears noting.

Evolution: -
9. Based on atheistic philosophies of naturalism and materialism. A world view and man-made false religion

To support this site fully is tantamount to saying that all evolutionists are not Christians. Do you dare to make that claim?

Tell me something, is a person a true Christian who follows Jesus Christ and yet calls Jesus Christ a sinner, even before He walked the earth?

Satan doesn't divide against himself, does God divide against Himself?

 

[gluadys]

And it doesn't really doesn't matter in the context of what CaiperLane was talking about. The many claims that evolution make set a contradiction in the beginning of the Bible which would set a chain reaction through out. Which would discredit who God said He Is.

Evolution does not = atheism but that certianly isn't the point. Moreover most of the people who believe in evolution do not believe in God, infact if you read some other threads here, they almost exclusively attack believes of others and do not defend evolution at all, don't go pointing your finger at people who believe in creation. This apparent "conflict" is two sided. Most Christian don't want evolution taght to there children as fact, thats the only conflict I see.

Actually more evolutionists believe in God (even the Christian God) than are atheists.

And most Christians have no problem with evolution or having their children taught evolution. Anti-evolution ideas are strong only in the US. And even there nearly half of all Christians are comfortable with the theory of evolution and do not see it as a threat to their faith nor as contradicting scripture.

However, that is an irrelevant argumentum ad populum.

The essential question is whether or not evolution happens. If evolution is true, God knows it is true and probably wants you to know it is true. I don't think God would want you to deny the truth based on a faulty reading of scripture.

 

[shernren]

God does not divide His church. Therefore those who believe that they are doing God's bidding do not divide the church. If they do it is only by believing that those on the other side of the divide are not in the church, and therefore they are not dividing the church but between those who are in the church and those who are not. It is my contention that whatever our differences, most TEs on this forum (not all, granted) are indeed within God's church, by His grace. It is therefore wrong to divide them from the church and ungodly since God does not divide His body.

 

[Micaiah]

Divisions are caused within the church when people do not show the word of God the respect it deserves. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for "teaching as doctrines the precepts of man". The problem here was that they elevated the teaching of some of their teachers above the inspired word of God.

 

[notto]

Your questions make me think you don't know about Darwinism and his theory of Evolution. He does not theorize that a Creator was involved in the making and shaping of the universe!

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. - charles darwin

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html