Why I believe Genesis 1 teaches evolutiion

[grmorton]

I have been having a discussion in the Amazing testimony thread about burrows etc. I have been told by Adam149 that all my beliefs depend upon my presuppositions. Thus, I thought a bit of theology on why I believe Genesis 1 teaches evolution is in order. For those who think that my presuppositions are naturalistic, think again. this is from my web page

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htmhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/



Why do I believe that the Bible teaches evolution? The issue to me is grammatical, not the Hebrew. The issue lies in what is the subject (the active agent) in the sentence.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11


And GodH430 saidH559, Let the earthH776 bringH1876 forthH1876 grassH1877, the herbH6212 yieldingH2232 seedH2233, and the fruitH6529 treeH6086 yieldingH6213 fruitH6529 after his kindH4327, whoseH834 seedH2233 is in itself, upon the earthH776: and it was soH3651.

In Hebrew this is Elohim amar erets, dasha dasha deshe eseb zara zera periy ets asa periy miyn asher zera erets ken

Elohim amar is God said. Well what did God say? He said,


God said:

“earth bring bring grass herb yielding seed fruit tree yielding fruit kind that seed earth thus so.”

That is a brute non-punctuated translation. What is the subject of the sentence God spoke? Why it is earth! The subject of the sentence is erets/earth. So what does it mean that ‘erets’ (the earth) is the subject of a sentence. Well according to an internet definition of subject it says

"The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something. You can find the subject of a sentence if you can find the verb. Ask the question, "Who or what 'verbs' or 'verbed'?" and the answer to that question is the subject." webster.commnet.edu/grammar/subjects.htm

Regardless of whether a language is head first or head-last, regardless of whether it has prepositions or postpositions, the rules of what a subject does is the same. It is the actor or the acted upon. In this case it is the actor.

OK, where is the verb of the sentence God spoke? It is bring bring. Dasha dasha. It is apparently used only 2 times in Scripture—here and in Joel 2:22.

What does Brown-Driver-Briggs say this means?

Quote Taken From:
Brown-Driver-Briggs

"to sprout, shoot, grow green
1a) (Qal) to sprout, grow green
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to sprout, cause to shoot forth"
Copyright respective of citation source.


In Joel 2:22 it is Qal.

Regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil in Genesis 1:11, secondary causation is not ruled out. If it is Hiphil, then it means ‘earth cause to sprout,” which clearly indicates secondary causation. If it is Qal imperative, then it means, Earth sprout vegetation, which also can be interpreted as secondary causation.

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth. I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.


I think that is why the Jewish Rabbi (and surely he knew a bit of Hebrew grammar) , Nachmanides said,

“It is possible that the name’ earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.” Ramban, (Nachmanides), “Commentary on the Torah,” Transl. By Rabbi Dr. Charles R. Chavel, (New York: Shiloh Publishing House, 1971), p. 40

Now that we know what the verb is, what is the subject. What is it that is bringing forth? Is it God directly? Not according to the Bible. It is the ‘erets’ which is actually doing the bringing forth regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil. So what does erets mean? According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it means:

Quote Taken From:
Brown-Driver-Briggs

1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan

Copyright respective of citation source.


In what sense should we understand the word ‘erets’? I think we can rule out 1d and 1e since that wouldn’t make much sense in the context. Given that we are talking about the origin of the earth, the logical interpretation is 1a1 or 1a2 is probably the most likely interpretation.

This verse also illustrates the fact that there is NO verse in Scripture which says, Plants yield plants after their kind. By that I mean where plants is both the subject and object of the sentence. Grammar requires that if plants are incapable of evolution, that there should be a statement in which plants are said to reproduce plants after their kind. What the Bible actually says is:

‘earth bring forth... fruit tree yielding fruit kind’

The tree yields fruit kind. What kind of tree is it? A fruit tree. Well, fruit trees bring forth fruit kind today but that is not the same as saying ‘fruit trees reproduce fruit trees after
their kind.’

What I think we have in the YEC interpretation of Scripture is lack of attention to the details of what is subject, what is object, what a subject does and what is not said, i.e. animals reproduce animals after their kind.

Like with the geological pictures, if the YECs could point me to one verse in which it says "animals reproduce animals after their kind" or "plants reproduce animals after their kind" one would have to give up the idea that the Bible possibly teaches evolution. But so far no one has done that. The above verse doesn't have plants as the subject of the phrase and so I don't think there is anything in scripture to rule out the concept of speciation or evolution.

Thus, I will stand by my interpretation. And the fact that dasha is hiphil in Genesis 1:11 and Qal in Joel 2:22 re enforces my case.

 

[Micaiah]

Here is the first chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 1


The History of Creation


The Creation
(1) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[1] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[2] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Footnotes

1. 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.
2. 1:26 Syriac reads all the wild animals of.

 

[Micaiah]

11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13So the evening and the morning were the third day.

This passage is saying that God spoke, and the earth yeilded plants. Each plant that was created reproduced after its own kind. One plant did not evolve into another plant.

 

[Micaiah]

Have a look here. The passage has a footnote about words that were added for clarity. You will notice there are very few. There is a close correlation between words we read today, and the early manuscripts from which our english texts were translated.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B1&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NKJV&x=8&y=14

 

[Micaiah]

Glenn,

Have you studied Hebrew?

You are analysing carefully the meaning of the word earth. What would you think if someone said your ideas were nonsense, that you are taking the words too literally, and God never intende us to believe the word earth here was in any way intended to indicate what actually occured during Creation?

 

[Micaiah]

Here is a link that contains a Hebrew interlinear text. It has the Hebrew words hyperlinked to a lexicon. A useful reference. You need to install the BST fonts first before you read can view the Hebrew words.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/

Here is a link to the first chapter of Genesis in Hebrew.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+1&section=0&version=kjv&new=1&oq=beginning

 

[seebs]

I've never before seen a single person dogpile a post like that.

I think Glenn's post is fascinating. This is the kind of subtlety that makes for an interesting read; is it intentional? Are we reading too much into this? After the efforts I've seen people go to, distinguishing between spiritual and physical death, and otherwise, I think it's interesting to see a comparatively straightforward reading. What brings forth life? The earth, as God ordained. Simple, straightforward, nothing weird about it.

 

[Vance]

I have also seen a strict literalist explain how the actual literal text is entirely consistent with creation over billions of years. They didn't believe in evolution, but they did a full analysis of the text in the original hebrew and found that the LITERAL text does not require a young earth. I think the book was called "A New Look at an Old Earth".

So, either literal or non-literal . . .

 

[United]

Hi Glenn,

Firstly, thanks for your input over recent weeks – it has provided a different perspective which I feel was needed in the forum. I have read your links and have numerous questions – but I will start with two.


You identify the Mediterranean basin as the likely location for Genesis 2, and it’s subsequent flooding in Genesis 6. Interestingly enough, I have been considering the breakthrough and subsequent flooding of the Black Sea around 7.5k years ago as a possible basis of Genesis 6. However, I have been unable to account for the description of the arc coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat (it appears the black sea flooding didn’t extend that far). How do you account for this in your theories of the Mediterranean?

I think that your theory of chromosomal fusion is consistent with the bible and the evidence, but I wonder if the added complexity is needed to maintain a historical view of Genesis. When Genesis describes God making man from the dust of the ground, can it only mean an instantaneous creation, or could it be referring to the proceeding millions of years of “creation”? For the latter interpretation, the description of God “breathing” life into man would refer to God giving man a soul. Any thoughts?

Thanks

 

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn,

Firstly, thanks for your input over recent weeks – it has provided a different perspective which I feel was needed in the forum. I have read your links and have numerous questions – but I will start with two.


You identify the Mediterranean basin as the likely location for Genesis 2, and it’s subsequent flooding in Genesis 6. Interestingly enough, I have been considering the breakthrough and subsequent flooding of the Black Sea around 7.5k years ago as a possible basis of Genesis 6. However, I have been unable to account for the description of the arc coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat (it appears the black sea flooding didn’t extend that far). How do you account for this in your theories of the Mediterranean?

I believe that the Scripture uses the plural, 'Mountains of Ararat'. I would argue that one can look at the topography of Turkey and see that the mountains extend from the Ararat region down to Adana and it is one chain. One also can not forget that the topography in that part of the world has changed over the past few million years.
So, I don't think looking for the ark is a worthwhile exercise and all we have to locate it is a very general reference to a general area.

I think that your theory of chromosomal fusion is consistent with the bible and the evidence, but I wonder if the added complexity is needed to maintain a historical view of Genesis. When Genesis describes God making man from the dust of the ground, can it only mean an instantaneous creation, or could it be referring to the proceeding millions of years of “creation”? For the latter interpretation, the description of God “breathing” life into man would refer to God giving man a soul. Any thoughts?

Thanks

The reason I went that way is that our bodies, our genetics show clear connections with ape. There is an epsilon gamma pseudogene which clearly connects our genetics with that of the apes. That must be explained. Here is the issue (from an old email of mine)

. First, someone who designs an object very rarely designs a broken part onto his object. An auto designer does not put a broken transmission in the back seat of the car.



There are parts of the genome of man, gorilla, chimpanzee and gibbon which show every appearance of being a broken gene. A gene consists of



control part--coding part A--junk--coding part B



The gene is then converted to RNA and processed. The control part is removed,the junk is removed and the two coding parts joined. Then a tail is put on the RNA version of the gene. It looks like:



coding part A--coding part B--tail



It is this RNA version which directs the formation of proteins. Occasionally however, the processed RNA is back transcribed into DNA and re-inserted into the nuclear genome. But the re-insertion lacks the control part and junk of the original and has the tail. Thus, the pseudogene looks

like:



coding part A--coding part B--tail



Fact: the two coding parts in the pseudo-gene are nearly identical to the original gene coding portions. The original gene is found sometimes on another chromosome. The fact that the pseudogene is a processed version of the original is quite clear. The control and junk regions have been removed. This is an insertion. The fact that the tail portion is not contained in the original would mean that if you want to explain the same pseudogene at the same location in man, gorilla, gibbon and chimp by independent common mistakes, you must assume that 8 deletions occurred independently at exactly the same place (deleting the control and junk regions in each species), and that 4 insertions independently occurred at a location nearby (inserting the

tail sequence). The way I calculate this, the odds are 1 chance out of 3.3 x 10^114. If you believe that this can happen then surely you can believe in evolution.



Without the control sequence, the pseudogene is totally useless and cannot be converted to a protein. Being useless, it can not affect the life of the animal. It becomes difficult to say that this portion of the DNA has a designed function. A subsequent deletion deleted half of the chimps' pseudogene so the chimp gets along fine with only half his pseudogene so it can't be doing anything really important.

 

[Micaiah]

So we're on to genetics now. You mean that's it Glenn. That's your theological basis for accepting evolution is compatible with the creation account.

 

[Remus]

Referring to your OP, I have some suggestions if you are open to some constructive criticism. This doesn’t directly affect your argument, but it does detract from the whole (at least causes a distraction). I would suggest taking out the section where you use Strong’s numbers to pull out the Hebrew words and retranslate it back into English. There are some major flaws with doing that and I don’t see that it adds anything to your argument. If you want to keep it, then I’d recommend translating directly from the Hebrew. By the method that you used, you end up with errors like the two instances of “dasha” where in the Hebrew it only shows up once but is translated into two words. ie. “bring forth”. Again, I don’t think it affects your argument. I would just use the English for the majority and only use the Hebrew for “bring forth” (dasha - Hiphil) and “earth” (‘erets).

 

[grmorton]

So we're on to genetics now. You mean that's it Glenn. That's your theological basis for accepting evolution is compatible with the creation account.

No, I laid out my theological and exegetical reasons for accepting evolution. It is in the phrase--Let the earth (what? repeat) earth bring forth living creatures. God ordered the earth to bring forth the living creatures. The earth did the actual bringing forth. Now, genetics of mankind shows that we are connected to the apes. And there is nothing wrong with examining the data of genetics to see what is out there. To ignore this data is to hide our heads in the sand. HEre is something I posted elsewhere that shows more of the problem we have if we deny our genetic connection to the primates.

Here are the Chromosomal differences between chimps, gorillas, orangs, monkeys and man. This chart is taken from J. Marks, "Chromosomal Evolution in Primates," in Steve Jones et al, editors, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 301

inferred.ancestor(2n=42)----->slow.change-->monkeys.2n=42-72
|
fission.to.2n=44---->rapid.change----->gibbons.2n-38-52
|
two.fissions.to.2n=48
|
multiplication.of.NORS-->Inversions.of.III,.IV,.X,.XII->Orangutan
|.......................................................................(2n=48).
Loss.of.NORs.from.2,9
|
Q.brilliance--------------------------
|....................................|.
Loss.of.NOR.from.18.......Loss.of.NOR.from.XV
|....................................|
inversions.of.4,9,17.......Inversion.on.XII
|....................................|
C.bands.on.1,.9,.16,.Y.....Terminal.C.bands--------------
|....................................|.....................................|
Fusion.of.2........Interstitial.C.bands.on.VII.......Translocation.of.V,.XVII
|....................................|.....................................|
Humans.2n=46...Inversions.of.IV,.IX,.XVII.........C.bands.on.XIV,XVI
.....................................|.....................................|
...........................Chimpanzees.(2n=48).............Loss.of.NORS
......................................................................from.XIII
......................................................................XIV,XVIII
...........................................................................|
...........................................................Inversions.of.VIII,X,XVII
...........................................................................|
....................................................................Gorilla.(2n=48)

Now lets go over the differences. As noted above, the inferred ancestor of both monkeys and apes (including us) had 42 chromosomes. this chart does not go over the change in the Monkeys and Gibbons. So lets start a detailed look after the gibbon split off the line. You see the fission to 2n=48 just below the gibbon split. All apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. That will be explained later. But the fact that all apes have the same number is at least indicative of common descent. But that isn't the only thing they share.

See the multiplication of NORs? A NOR is a Nucleolar organizers:



Quote Taken From: J. Marks, "Chromosomal Evolution in Primates," in Steve Jones et al, editors, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 301

"Nucleolar organisers (NORs) contain many copies of the genes for ribosome structure (the ribosome is the cell organelle on which protein assembly occurs). Baboons and macaques, and most of the gibbons also, have only one pair of metacentric chromosomes bearing NORs (metacentric chromosomes have their centromeres halfway along so that they appear 'two-armed' when segregating during cell division). All the great apes--the two chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans--have several pairs of acrocentric chromosomes with NORs (acrocentric chromosomes appear 'one-armed' because their centromeres are located near one end). it thus appears that the radiation of the great apes during the Miocene epoch was accompanied by a 'colonisation' of various chromosomes by NORs. This was accompanied by a fission of three pairs of chromosomes that raised the diploid number from the ancestral 2n-=42 to 2n=48."​

Copyright respective of citation source.


When the orangutans broke off, they share inversions on chromosomes 3,4, 10 and 12. The Great apes and us don't share these inversions. They didn't happen in our genetic history.

But all the great apes and us share the loss of NORs on chromosomes 2 and 9. The Orangutans didn't share that history . Neither do the gibbons, monkeys or orangutans share the Q brilliance. These are bands on the chromosomes that stain brightly when they come incontace with the dye quinacrine. This is something that lab researchers apply to help them see the detail in the chromosomes. There is no vital function in the stained regions shining brightly, but Gorillas, Chimps and Humans share this trait while Orangs, Gibbons and monkeys don't have it. This is the nested type of similarity that the story obove lacks. Why would God create gorillas, chimps and humans in a way that they would all share regions of their chromosomes which would shine brightly when an artificial chemical was placed in contact with the DNA?

Now we are at the split between the chimps-gorilla line and human line. Humans lost the NORs on chromosome 18 but both the chimps and gorillas lost them on chromosome 15. Both chimps and gorillas have an inversion (a section of the chromosome that is cut out, flipped over and stiched in again) on chromosome 12. Both chimpls and gorillas have C-bands on the ends of their chromosomes. C-banding is another staining technique. The stain attaches itself to particular patterns. Humans lack the terminal C-banding which was supposed to show the centromere but occasionally the dye sticks to other parts of the chromosome. This c-banding is the last common feature of chimps and gorillas. Chimps then gained c-banding on chromosome 7 and had inversions occur on chromosomes 4,9 and 17.

Gorillas had a translocation of chromosome 5 and 17, they added c bands on 14 and 16, lost NORs on 13, 14 and 18 and then had more inversions on 8, 10 and 18.

While all this was going on in hte chimp-gorilla line, humans were now on their own track losing NORs from 18, inversions took place on 4, 9, and 17 C bands appear on 1,9, 16 and y. And finally there was a fusion of a couple of chromosomes to make the #2 chromosome in mankind. Looking at an old article in Science one can see that the banding on this chromosome is almost identical to that of two of the chimp chromosome bandings. see Jorge J. Yunis and Om Prakash, "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy," Science March 1982, p. 1525.

Now, this type of nested change and commonality is simply not discussed in this strawman leggo story. Leggos are far too simple to ever have this kind of complexity. One can carry this type of gene history down to further levels of detail. Narcolepsy which primarily afflicks caucasions occurred very late in history sometime after their ancestors left Africa.

Quote Taken From: Christopher Wills, The Children of Prometheus, (Reading,


Mass: Perseus Books, 1998), p. 222

“Virtually all Caucasians who exhibit narcolepsy carry a
particular allele in one part of a complex collection of
genes called HLA, which is found on chromosome 6.”
​

Copyright respective of citation source.

 

[grmorton]

Referring to your OP, I have some suggestions if you are open to some constructive criticism. This doesn’t directly affect your argument, but it does detract from the whole (at least causes a distraction). I would suggest taking out the section where you use Strong’s numbers to pull out the Hebrew words and retranslate it back into English. There are some major flaws with doing that and I don’t see that it adds anything to your argument. If you want to keep it, then I’d recommend translating directly from the Hebrew. By the method that you used, you end up with errors like the two instances of “dasha” where in the Hebrew it only shows up once but is translated into two words. ie. “bring forth”. Again, I don’t think it affects your argument. I would just use the English for the majority and only use the Hebrew for “bring forth” (dasha - Hiphil) and “earth” (‘erets).

Hmm, Thanks for the criticism. I got this from Parsons' version of Strongs. I don't think I added something but if you know there is only one dasha, then I will take your word for it. I agree that this doesn't affect the argument but I would prefer to get the argument as tight as possible. Thanks.

 

[Micaiah]

It is in the phrase--Let the earth (what? repeat) earth bring forth living creatures. God ordered the earth to bring forth the living creatures. The earth did the actual bringing forth. Now, genetics of mankind shows that we are connected to the apes. And there is nothing wrong with examining the data of genetics to see what is out there. To ignore this data is to hide our heads in the sand. HEre is something I posted elsewhere that shows more of the problem we have if we deny our genetic connection to the primates.

Your conclusions are derived from one phrase in Genesis 1 , and the unproven idea that human and ape DNA are similar.

Have another look at the whole chapter of Genesis 1.

11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13So the evening and the morning were the third day.

20Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[2] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Scripture plainly asserts the following:

Plants and animals were to reproduce according to their own kind.
All that God made was good.
Man and woman were created in God's image.

All of these truths demonstrate that God did not use evolution in Creation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

and the unproven idea that human and ape DNA are similar.

You're joking, aren't you? Similar? They're almost the ****ing same!

 

[Micaiah]

I take it you are a Christian, and such language, even if implied, is not what we expect to see on this forum. Please remove it!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Who died and made you a moderator?

 

[artybloke]

I take it you are a Christian, and such language, even if implied, is not what we expect to see on this forum. Please remove it!

Why the **** should he?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Your conclusions are derived from one phrase in Genesis 1 , and the unproven idea that human and ape DNA are similar.

You're joking aren't you? We share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees. This doesn't mean that we evolved FROM chimps. It means we share a common ancestor, and at some point, God set us apart and allowed us to evolve into the dominant species.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who will stick their fingers in their ears when PROVEN scientific facts are brought to them. What are you so afraid of? Will your world crumble and shatter if you accept the fact that we have evolved from lower forms of life?