Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[Job 33:6]

That's too vague. How can that be?

It sounds like a theory in search of evidence for the theory's existence.

Yeah, so from my understanding, Charles Darwin, though he was familiar with geology, was doing some kind of studies on species that lived in the Galapagos Islands. And his studies weren't really on fossils or extinct animals. But rather his studies were on modern-day living animals. And from my understanding he noticed that there were different animals that held similar treats that appeared to be related. And he proposed this idea that all of these animals were related but would just change over generations.

For example, finches he observed were related, and some of them just had more rounded beaks than others.

And then with that in mind he thought well, if these animals all came from a common finch ancestor, then there ought to be evidence for this in the rock record. But at that time the fossil succession didn't really exist in any scientific paper or anything of that nature. And Darwin was actually troubled by the idea that there were no fossils. But he thought that they might exist.

And other people had discovered some fossils, but as far as I am aware, they didn't really understand what they were working with. Some people thought that dinosaur bones were giant iguanas. People didn't really seem to have an idea of what fossils were aside from some mysterious animals that existed in the past. But I don't think anyone was proposing that those fossils were of ancestors.

And in fact, I think that some people thought that fossils were evidence for beasts that just existed in foreign lands. And some people would go and explore foreign lands in search for these giant animals, not realizing that they had been extinct for millions of years. Others thought perhaps they were pre-flood behemoths and such.

But with Darwin's proposal, in combination with some of the proposals of the founding fathers of geology, a united theory began to form. Geologists like James Hutton had already proposed an extremely old Earth based on ideas of superposition and observations of unconformities (which was done independently of studies on fossils). And then generations later, Darwin showed up and proposed this idea that life was linked over time and that fossils all to exist. And then with those combined ideas, then paleontology, the child of the two, came to really exist through an understanding of the fossil record and the law of faunal succession.

And that's my understanding of how the order of discoveries had occurred.

Now in modern times, for me and I'm sure many other people, we see the fossils first as we study geology, and then later come to be aware of the theory of evolution as it pertains to biology as an afterthought.
But I think historically it was more
the other way around where it was the biologists who initiated the sequence of thoughts and paleontologists who followed behind.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yeah, so for my understanding, Charles Darwin, though he was familiar with geology, was doing some kind of studies on species that lived in the Galapagos Islands. And his studies weren't really on fossils or extinct animals. But rather his studies were on modern-day living animals. And for my understanding he noticed that there were different animals that held similar treats that appeared to be related. And he proposed this idea that all of these animals were related but would just change over generations.

For example the finches were related, and some of them just had more rounded beaks than others.

And then with that in mind he thought well, if these animals all came from a common finch ancestor, then they're ought to be evidence for this in the rock record. But at that time the fossil succession didn't really exist in any scientific paper or anything of that nature. And Darwin was actually troubled by the idea that there were no fossils. But he thought that they might exist.

And other scientists had discovered some fossils, but as far as I am aware, they didn't really understand what they were working with. Some people thought that dinosaur bones were giant iguanas. People didn't really seem to have an idea of what fossils were aside from some mysterious animals that existed in the past. But I don't think anyone was proposing that those fossils were of ancestors.

And in fact, I think that some people thought that fossils were evidence for beasts that just existed in foreign lands. Answer people would go and explore foreign lands in search for these giant animals, not realizing that they had been extinct for millions of years.

But with Darwin's proposal, in combination with some of the founding fathers of geologies proposals of an old earth, a United theory began to form. Geologists like James Hutton had already proposed an extremely old Earth based on ideas of superposition and observations of unconformities. And then generations later, Darwin showed up and proposed this idea that life was linked over time and that fossils all to exist. And then with those combined ideas then paleontology came to really exist through an understanding of the fossil record or the law of faunal succession.

And that's my understanding of how the order of discoveries had occurred.

Now in modern times, for me and I'm sure many other people, we see the fossils first as we study geology, and then later come to be aware of the theory of evolution as it pertains to biology as an afterthought.
But I think historically it was more
the other way around where it was the biologists who initiated the sequence of thoughts and paleontologists who followed behind.

And I would definitely recommend reading books of old scientists as well, like James Hutton's theory of the Earth, It was really an interesting read where you get to see into the minds of people who lived in the 1700s. Different people discussing ideas of how to harness electricity and what unconformities are, And they propose these ideas without really knowing that one day we would be driving electric cars and studying plate tectonics on Mars.

And even when we look at some of Darwin's works, these people just had no idea just how far their novel discoveries would go.

 

[Contenders Edge]

ummm we get mutant genes from our parents, you literally have hundreds.

Again you don't have to reproduce cats from rats, or birds from dinosaurs *not lizards* just the methods that were used to determine this.

As for birds from dinosaurs, I think this is pretty good evidence. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161208121636-dinosaur-amber-2-super-169.jpg

Explain where those feathers came from on the dinosaur tail if not evolution. Thats not counting the dozens of other fossils with feathers we've spotted over there last two decades.

Explain how all the fossils we find fit within the phyolgenic list. that was determined before they were found. All modern animals and the fossil record fit what we know of evolution explain that. We don't find things that are contradictory to it.

And what methods are used to make this determination if they cannot repeat the evolutionary process. As for your image which you presented, it COULD be a feathered tail, but that does not necessarily mean that the creature to which it belonged was a transitional form. It could have just as easily belonged to an extinct bird. Would be more helpful if you could provide the publication source associated with the image link so that everyone can make a more informed determination of what it might be.

And what other dozens of fossils with feathers are there that have been spotted over the last two decades? As for this phyolgenic list, that is a hypothetical list only and does not necessarily reflect the actual locations they are found.

Paleontologists have been known to have searched certain strata and sedimentary layers expecting to find certain fossils and instead have found fossils they did not expect to be there instead.

 

[GenemZ]

And I would definitely recommend reading books of old scientists as well, like James Hutton's theory of the Earth, It was really an interesting read where you get to see into the minds of people who lived in the 1700s. Different people discussing ideas of how to harness electricity and what unconformities are, And they propose these ideas without really knowing that one day we would be driving electric cars and studying plate tectonics on Mars.

And even when we look at some of Darwin's works, these people just had no idea just how far their novel discoveries would go.

The real question should be....

Why did God create prehistoric life? Then judge and destroy it later on.

Keep in mind, God has a divine modus operandi. For as the prehistoric fossils are to us now? In the future, what we now are, will be like the prehistoric fossils are to us now!

​

“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,​

nor will they come to mind." Isa 65:17​

Remembered no more, and will not come to mind? Prehistoric!

God will create a world for His purpose. Use it for His purpose to teach men,angels, or both. When they graduate? God has them leave that classroom and moves to the next classroom (next world).

Prehistoric life was designed for the dominion of angels. Adam did not come til after. Angels held the dominion in the prehistoric world just like this world was designed for the dominion of man (Adam).

Fossils are not about evolution. Fossils are like discovering an abandoned schoolhouse that God once used to educate angels concerning their unique functions and purpose. In the mean while? The young earth creationists are standing on top of a goldmine, but keep bulldozing the door shut to the entrance of gaining great understanding of how God operates.

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon." Isa 14:12-13​

Keep in mind. Lucifer was at one time called the morning star of the Dawn.He was able to bear great light! Other angels were also able to bear light. Not all, some.

On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy? Jb 38:6-7​

Note. not all. But certain angels were called 'morning stars.' They and Lucifer were a special "race" of angel! Racism existed among even the angels.

These specialized angels were light bearers for the prehistoric worlds.

Also, keep in mind. For the first three days of sunlight as found in Genesis chapter One? There was no sun, moon, nor stars to provide light! For three days light was given by the Lord.

In that manner angels who were light bearers in the previous creation were created in the image of God in their own way to provide light for that prehistoric world.

In the prehistoric ecosystem, apparently light bearing angels were an intrical part of its daily function having a direct effect on biological life just like the sun, moon do for us now.

grace and peace

 

[coffee4u]

I never said that you personally are lying.

By association you did.

Anyway here are my thoughts on that article. Jotted down as I went.

First he waffles on. I find people do that when they don't have a strong case. No need to fill pages with flowering padding, just get to the point and lay out your information. 9 pages? It could have been done in 2-3.

“of secondary importance to determine to what extent the meaning we derive from the passage can be squared with current geological doctrine”
Since when is geology ‘doctrine’?

"It is reasonable enough to attempt a reconciliation"
And since when do we need a reconciliation with it?
I think he is showing his own doubt of the scriptures more than anything else here.

“Unfortunately, human beings accept authority rather easily.”
The only authority I believe here is God's word

Talking about quotes:
“Quotation marks provide a reinforcement for an observation which lessens (or seems to lessen) the more important requirement that it be the truth.”
There is truth in that when the writing is from man, but if its scripture it is truth.


"The cliche that the Hebrew word (bara) means "to create out of nothing" and that it is used only of divine activity, is a case in point.
Both parts of the statement are demonstrably false. As to the first, we know that Scripture says of Adam that he was created out of the dust of the ground,
not ex nihilo. And as to the second, a Young's Concordance will soon show the English
reader that the supposed rule is not true in this regard either.
The fact is that the Hebrew word may indeed mean creation ex nihilo.... and probably does in Gen. 1.1. But it is not something that inheres in the word itself"
Glad to see he agrees with me here.

"the question of whether Genesis, Chapter one, can be squared with modern geological theory is of secondary importance."
Zero importance in my book.
He then repeats himself over that statement.
by repeating it he sheds doubt on exactly how much importance he is really holding onto.

"It is written for those who still have an open mind and who do not expect in such questions as these to achieve absolute certainty where we are dealing with an ancient language whose grammar and syntax we still do not understand completely."
Again I agree with him. Yet you accept it 100%
As I said I would not be adverse to seeing more scripture.

"But this need not deter one, because these same authorities contradict them selves in certain critical ways. Keil refuses to recognize the possibility of "became"for "was" in Gen. 1.2 but suggests it for "was" in Gen. 3.20 where the same word occurs in precisely the same form.”
Gen 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living
Is the only way of saying that.

"Some have held that linguistically it is not possible to determine with certainty how the passage should be translated and that therefore one must decide the issue exegetically. They then propose that "contextual support" for any other view than that commonly accepted is entirely lacking. But this begs the question altogether. The context of so many passages is nothing more than the bias of the reader."

In other words he has no other scriptural support for his view.

Which makes this two world view an interesting idea and nothing more.

Here is an example of a hard fact.
Jesus is God
Scriptural back up
1. John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

2. Philippians 2:5-6 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

3. John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And many more.
We all agree this is sound doctrine. It isn’t an idea that we can ponder and debate on. Anyone who does not believe this is not a Christian. It is that plain.
The idea of two worlds is not a rock solid fact no matter how often you call those of us who believe in 1 earth to be liars.

“I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1.2 as "But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc."
And if he feels that way then good for him. It’s good to have things settled in your own mind. But I do not feel that way inclined.

One day we will find out the truth and it won’t come from arguments on some message board but from God himself.

Now you need to learn to be happy in your view as he is without calling those of us who don't agree with you liars. By all means show what you believe but words like 'lie' better stay at the door if you want any fellowship with other believers.
Lie: verb: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Is a strong and serous charge. This how you would describe Satan not others who believe in Christ. Used casually it is an insult and not in keeping with loving each other.
Do not toss around the word like it is meaningless. The same can be said of ‘hate’, it should be used carefully and with reflection not as some casual toss away.

While he rambled on at length he made barely any case for his belief over the entire 9 pages. Rather disappointed really, as once more I am not shown any scripture for someones position.

 

[GenemZ]

By association you did.

Anyway here are my thoughts on that article. Jotted down as I went.

I see you like to be long winded....

Here is where you are still insisting and are dead wrong.

Now you need to learn to be happy in your view as he is without calling those of us who don't agree with you liars. By all means show what you believe but words like 'lie' better stay at the door if you want any fellowship with other believers.

When I said lying? I will repeat again. They lie when they say the GAP Understanding was created to counter evolution. That book clearly states it was a much older understanding than evolution ever was.

That is where YEC's lie with eyes closed when presented the GAP Fact.

Can your thinking evolve that much? They claim it was invented to counter Darwinism. Its not the case.Its much older than that.

And, no. I did not claim to agree with all the conclusions in the book. But lied about me. How? By presumption that I am doing so. Not a good record for you so far.

Next time try asking if I agree with all that the book says, please. For I do not agree with the attempt to translate "the earth was" ... as being, "and the earth became." There is no conflict if you understand how Moses was to read Genesis 1:2 before the congregation. The Masoretic text reveals that unique detail.

grace and peace
........

 

[loveofourlord]

And what methods are used to make this determination if they cannot repeat the evolutionary process. As for your image which you presented, it COULD be a feathered tail, but that does not necessarily mean that the creature to which it belonged was a transitional form. It could have just as easily belonged to an extinct bird. Would be more helpful if you could provide the publication source associated with the image link so that everyone can make a more informed determination of what it might be.

And what other dozens of fossils with feathers are there that have been spotted over the last two decades? As for this phyolgenic list, that is a hypothetical list only and does not necessarily reflect the actual locations they are found.

Paleontologists have been known to have searched certain strata and sedimentary layers expecting to find certain fossils and instead have found fossils they did not expect to be there instead.

Tiktaalik is the best example determination, they went there looking for it, as that's where it would be in the fossil record, and surprise surprise they found it. Again, we find feathered dinosaurs exactly where in the phylogenic tree we expect and at the right time we expect.

And it is by definition transitional form, and you know paleontologists can tell the difference from a extinct bird and dinosaur not like they haven't spent their entire lives researching this stuff.

As for fossils.

Can you name some examples of fossils they found that were not expecting? Just how far off were they?

 

[coffee4u]

I see you like to be long winded....

Here is where you are still insisting and are dead wrong.



When I said lying? I will repeat again. They lie when they say the GAP Understanding was created to counter evolution. That book clearly states it was a much older understanding than evolution ever was.

That is where YEC's lie with eyes closed when presented the GAP Fact.

Can your thinking evolve that much? They claim it was invented to counter Darwinism. Its not the case.Its much older than that.

And, no. I did not claim to agree with all the conclusions in the book. But lied about me. How? By presumption that I am doing so. Not a good record for you so far.

Next time try asking if I agree with all that the book says, please. For I do not agree with the attempt to translate "the earth was" ... as being, "and the earth became." There is no conflict if you understand how Moses was to read Genesis 1:2 before the congregation. The Masoretic text reveals that unique detail.

grace and peace
........

You asked me to look over a 9 page article, and as such I was quite brief, only quoting what I particularly noticed.

Some people DO use the gap theory to counter evolution. I never said you did or not since I don't know. I assume good intentions until shown otherwise.

I am sorry but I saw no facts and no scriptural backup, as I said I was quite disappointed.

If you don't agree with the man perhaps don't link to him, just an idea.

I never said you were lying, you may want to read over what I said again. My reference is to you calling us liars, which I take offense at. My suggestion was if you want conversation with us is to stop dropping the word lie all over the place. Of course continue if you want to, I shall simply not respond.

 

[coffee4u]

Tiktaalik is the best example determination, they went there looking for it, as that's where it would be in the fossil record, and surprise surprise they found it. Again, we find feathered dinosaurs exactly where in the phylogenic tree we expect and at the right time we expect.

Tiktaalik was a fish not a dinosaur.

And it is by definition transitional form, and you know paleontologists can tell the difference from a extinct bird and dinosaur not like they haven't spent their entire lives researching this stuff.

One question. Is it impossible for God to create a creature with gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy rib cage and a crocodile-like head?

 

[GenemZ]

You asked me to look over a 9 page article, and as such I was quite brief, only quoting what I particularly noticed.

Some people DO use the gap theory to counter evolution. I never said you did or not since I don't know. I assume good intentions until shown otherwise.

I am sorry but I saw no facts and no scriptural backup, as I said I was quite disappointed.

If you don't agree with the man perhaps don't link to him, just an idea.

I never said you were lying, you may want to read over what I said again. My reference is to you calling us liars, which I take offense at. My suggestion was if you want conversation with us is to stop dropping the word lie all over the place. Of course continue if you want to, I shall simply not respond.

Here is something you may have missed. My main point was that the GAP understanding was seen by scholars long before the evolution controversy raised its mutated head...

The page shows that the GAP understanding was not some "new theory." Not new and contrived as new earth creationists have claimed many times as a means to quickly push it aside, not to be discussed.

Origen, for example, who lived from 186 to about 254 A.D., and
to whom the original languages of the Bible were very familiar, has
this to say in his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1:

"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of
in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven
and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we
now see afterwards borrowed their names."

And that he saw verse 2 as a description of a "casting down" of the
original is borne out quite clearly by his subsequent observation that
the condition resulted from a "disruption" which is best described, he
suggests, by the Latin verb dejicere, ‘to throw down."​

[page 8 of 31] Without Form and Void - Chapter 1​

Please try to read that entire page and you'll see how various ancient scholars used what the Hebrew told them, though they used it to create their own theories (since they had no fossil evidence to work with).

The fact remains. They all say that the Hebrew shows a destruction of the earth prior to Genesis 1:3.

grace and peace.......

 

[GenemZ]

Two GREAT references works about the GAP understanding can be found here.


CREATION, CHAOS, AND RESTORATION - by R.B. Thieme Jr.

R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries — Creation, Chaos, and Restoration


The Invisible War Paperback – by Donald Grey Barnhouse

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-War-Donald-Grey-Barnhouse/dp/031020481X

 

[FaithT]

You have no evidence of special creation. Why did God so poorly design the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Why is there clear transitional forms in the evolution of the reptile inner ear to the mammal ear. You obfuscate because you cannot defend. Attack the person because you have zero arguments.

What denomination are you? Im Lutheran LCMS.

 

[GenemZ]

You have no evidence of special creation. Why did God so poorly design the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Why is there clear transitional forms in the evolution of the reptile inner ear to the mammal ear. You obfuscate because you cannot defend. Attack the person because you have zero arguments.

You make something appear to be wrong when no wrong is evident. The same Lord created all animals... He established His perimeters of design that will leave His signature on that which He created. I do not see the point in what you are saying, but in your own eyes you think you have one. He gave reptile males a type of penis, and he designed another one for the elephant. That is like saying all male animals that have a penis evolved from one another... You try very hard to find something with the appearance of being deep, but at the end of the day, it makes no sense, nor does it matter.

 

[Gottservant]

Getting back to the OP: I sort of think "if I could just understand 'Evolution' simply, then I would be able to create a context, in which both faith and science help each other".

So I try desperately to interpret 'Evolution' from a perspective of faith.

I don't want to crush the Devil's hope, I want to help people move away from 'sin' and I want more and more to point people to the words of Jesus.

People do think of Jesus, but they don't contend with Him scripturally - which is basically the whole point!

One day the back and forth will seem boring and unbelievers will give up - I just don't want to lose hope that someone might be saved in the meantime!

 

[GenemZ]

One day the back and forth will seem boring and unbelievers will give up - I just don't want to lose hope that someone might be saved in the meantime!

We are harvesters.... Those who will be saved? Its the Lord who draws them to the point of salvation. When ripe he sends us out for a harvest. As long as we do not lie against the truth? Some will believe and some will not.

Hope I did not bore you....

grace and peace

 

[FredVB]

Evolution theory is not needed and the consideration of it is not of any help to Christian communication or to the essential Christian message. Trusting God is essential in that, not considering that God uses the way of the more fit surviving over the others. Grace, compassion, and mercy, which we can trust in the love from God, go in the contrary direction. The design from God in the creation is still of relevance, it is still showing provision from God.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolution theory is not needed and the consideration of it is not of any help to Christian communication or to the essential Christian message. Trusting God is essential in that, not considering that God uses the way of the more fit surviving over the others. Grace, compassion, and mercy, which we can trust in the love from God, go in the contrary direction. The design from God in the creation is still of relevance, it is still showing provision from God.

Actually if you want to preach the message of god and convert people to Christianity sticking with reality will help a lot. Anyone with more then a modicum of understanding of evolution will reject Christianity if it insists upon evolution not being compatible. And will drive more Christians away. If you want people to accept the message of Jesus, then you should accept the truth of reality. You give atheists more ammo when you insist on rejecting science over your mistaken understanding of the bible and gods creation.

 

[FredVB]

Actually if you want to preach the message of god and convert people to Christianity sticking with reality will help a lot. Anyone with more then a modicum of understanding of evolution will reject Christianity if it insists upon evolution not being compatible. And will drive more Christians away. If you want people to accept the message of Jesus, then you should accept the truth of reality. You give atheists more ammo when you insist on rejecting science over your mistaken understanding of the bible and gods creation.

All these personal remarks are mistaken, you really do not know me to be making those. I simply say that I do not need to bring evolution up. You do not know whether I am a preacher or not, that I simply share Christian messages online and speak of my Christianity at what opportune moments come up when communicating with any in person, which is not frequent in these days while I am distancing. Evolution just does not come up in those instances and it would not seem relevant. I surely made a mistake posting in this subforum, I think I will avoid doing that again. That I do not accept the truth of reality, insisting on rejecting science over mistaken understanding of the Bible, really? You do not know anything about my interest in science or any of my interests. All that judgment without knowing me. Where does that come from, I wonder. It really isn't so, but I see this is not the place I will want to post in.

 

[loveofourlord]

All these personal remarks are mistaken, you really do not know me to be making those. I simply say that I do not need to bring evolution up. You do not know whether I am a preacher or not, that I simply share Christian messages online and speak of my Christianity at what opportune moments come up when communicating with any in person, which is not frequent in these days while I am distancing. Evolution just does not come up in those instances and it would not seem relevant. I surely made a mistake posting in this subforum, I think I will avoid doing that again. That I do not accept the truth of reality, insisting on rejecting science over mistaken understanding of the Bible, really? You do not know anything about my interest in science or any of my interests. All that judgment without knowing me. Where does that come from, I wonder. It really isn't so, but I see this is not the place I will want to post in.

your the one whose posts came off like many here, where it sounded like you were saying evolution has no place. Even in what you said it has a place, if you want to convince someone of Christianity you will have to show how it comports with reality, especially when you have so many high profile Christians attacking evolution and such.

 

[FaithT]

It just takes evidence. And since it's been directly observed, that's pretty solid.



Even many creationist organizations admit that new species, genera,and sometimes higher levels of taxa evolve from other organisms. So they think there's evidence for it.

Many? Which ones?