[_ Old Earth _] Christians, why not evolution?

[dad]

Starting from creation week, and the garden, and the created men and beasts, why not some evolution? Obviously trying to assume the adapting or evolving that goes on back past that is absurd, and unsupportable, but why not accept the bits since then?
The different past in the bible allows for it, it seems.

 

[ArtGuy]

Because disregarding nonsense about alternate laws of physics and such, the evolution that is proposed by the academic community requires a lot more than 6000 years to show notable changes. It certainly requires more time than that to see dramatically different species form.

 

[dad]

Because disregarding nonsense about alternate laws of physics and such, the evolution that is proposed by the academic community requires a lot more than 6000 years to show notable changes. It certainly requires more time than that to see dramatically different species form.

Ha. So the crux of the matter is a different past to explain the hyper evolution. How simple.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Well for me I have not seen any proof that when things "evolve" or "adapt" new DNA information is created. What I have read and studied has provided more proof that DNA information is lost and not added when things “adaptâ€Â…such as bacteria for instance.

The bottom line for me is that the Evolutionary theory does not provide any facts that DNA information is created. Also I might add that the explanation that mutation brings about change does not sit well with me considering the information I have read shows that mutation never creates an advantageâ€â€only problems.

 

[ArtGuy]

Also I might add that the explanation that mutation brings about change does not sit well with me considering the information I have read shows that mutation never creates an advantageâ€â€only problems.

Clearly, you haven't been reading enough X-Men.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Clearly, you haven't been reading enough X-Men.

Interesting, X-Men is hardly scientific literature. 8-)

 

[Khristeeanos]

Starting from creation week, and the garden, and the created men and beasts, why not some evolution? Obviously trying to assume the adapting or evolving that goes on back past that is absurd, and unsupportable, but why not accept the bits since then?
The different past in the bible allows for it, it seems.

I am not sure why any YEC's would be against the variational changes that have obviously happened in the past 4,500 years.

 

[ArtGuy]

Clearly, you haven't been reading enough X-Men.

Interesting, X-Men is hardly scientific literature. 8-)

...

You do realize I was making a joke, yes?

 

[dad]

Well for me I have not seen any proof that when things "evolve" or "adapt" new DNA information is created. What I have read and studied has provided more proof that DNA information is lost and not added when things “adaptâ€Â…such as bacteria for instance.

The bottom line for me is that the Evolutionary theory does not provide any facts that DNA information is created. Also I might add that the explanation that mutation brings about change does not sit well with me considering the information I have read shows that mutation never creates an advantageâ€â€only problems.

That could well be. But our information regards the present adapting of things. In the past, if the world was quite different, maybe the evolution that happened to creatures (like after the flood) did not work as it now does. If it was mutation, then it seems like Noah would have pretty mutated genes in the 1600 years since Adam. But he and a few others did pretty well what Adam did, populate a planet, so I think their genes were pretty well good as Adams were. The mutation bit possibly is just the present way things happen?
In other words I read where all cats started off with just the one type, and elephants, (mammoths etc). So there was a lot of adapting that went on, and not much time for it to happen as it now does. I don't see why it was a damaging of DNA that occured back then, just a divergence. When that 'something' happened that changed everything, we were left with what we now have. One example is the serpent who was a creature, some even hypothesize it was erect, or could fly even. (and talk of course) It got 'changed' or hyper adapted into another type of creature as a curse, and went down on the dirt, to slink around. No long ages there.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:-?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

dad,

It seems like you subscribe to theistic evolution, or progressive evolution and frankly I don’t by either. The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is pretty clear... such ‘comprises’ cannot work. I take Genesis literally by they way, the context and grammar structure and such makes it clear it is not a metaphor or simile.

-Note: Liberal Theologians may say something different but I am discussed with liberal theology and frankly I don't think it is even Christian.

 

[dad]

..
The JPS states the earth was unformed and void. But in Jeremiah 4:23 in both the JPS and KJV the prophet states: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. The prophet was looking back in revelation, to a time when no man existed,

The prophet looked nowhere, that was God speaking, in case you missed that!

... From 'earth was without form, and void' we can clearly see that it could be equally interpreted after it was created that it "became a waste(land) and empty".

Why twist, it's better to look for a preponderance of scripture, and try to see what it means, if in doubt. "..tohu and bohu, which we translate without form and void, are of uncertain etymology;.." http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... se=2#Ge1_2

When something is uncertain, better to look around the bible to see what fits, than to go wild on some pet theory.



[quote:49e5b]Some people refer to this as the Gap Theory, I think it's just there way of saying your wrong!

Better go back and do their homework, grasping at the straws of a few obscure verses to try to conform to what they thought was science is pretty lame.

If you don't understand what the Gap Theory is or by what I mean, your probably lucky.

Guess I was, not any more, apparently.

I think the earth became void because satan fell from grace which is why its a waste, since he's the ruler over erets-earth.

It wasn't a waste, it was a new planet, and He made a nice paradise garden for us, where we could live forever. I wouldn't confuse the creation process with something more sinister. When we create new planets, I suppose, it starts out like that.

They believe the words mean God created a formless earth and shaped it to his liking, but he sure didn't create the heavens without form.

Hey, the waters were not separated from land yet, and there were no features on the surface of the earth as we know them, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

But whatever, let me leave it at that. Some people also argue that because no man was created until the 6th day, that this is when Satan was created.

They can guess, but that don't amount to much.

They also point to the fact that Jesus was created on the 1st day, being the Light.

No, He was the beginning of the creation of God, and that was not this universe and world, in fact it says Jesus made the world, no? How could He make it if He was made afterwards Himself? Ridiculous. Also, to remove any doubt, there were beings made before the world. Prov 8 tells of one lady watching the creation! If Jesus was the beginning of the creation, what was she?

Nechunya ben HaKanah a Hebrew commentator on Genesis wrote more than 2000 years ago that the 42 lettered name of God had within it the answer to the age of the universe.

Whoopee do, millions know that, it was made in creation week.

His successor, Rabbi Yitzhak deMin Acco insisted that the 42 lettered name of God alluded to the 42,000 divine years which transpired between the beginning of creation and that of man.

He was wrong.

If a day is as a 1000 years to God, he concluded that a divine year, is 365 1/4 x 1,000 or 365,250 of our own years.

So Jesus was dead for how long then, before He rose from the dead? Ridiculous. Also, I haven't noticed a morning or evening that was 500 years long, have you!? The poor plants made before the sun would have thousands of years to wait for the sun as well. No.

Thus the time between the beginning of creation and the creation of man is 42,000 x 365,250 which equals 15.34 billion years! Pretty amazing HUH!

Yes! The depths people will sink to to try to make the simple word conform to science, rather than believing it!

... So adding 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 equals 15 3/4 billion years! Pretty much the same as cosmologists agree.

The cosmo guys base it on wrong assumptions, as do the gappers. Sounds like the gap might be between their ears!

It's possible some evolution took place, probably not like they want you to believe. And No it didn't take 6000 years!

Of course it did! Why would I take your version of timing, when you can't even figure out what a week is. Corporations would love you. 'Next day off is in 6 days, workers, that means, 13 billion years! How dumb do you think God is?

If Adam was placed in the Garden the 8th day, and came out on the 9th,

Boy, he sure named every animal in the world in a hurry, and recovered from the Eve surgery well! God mustn't have walked in the garden, He must've ran like a cheetah!

which was around 4000 B.C. Then calculating for 1000 yrs of our time 8 days back brings us to 12,000 B.C. The end of the Ice age.

So you think an ice age 12,000 years before creation is much better than millions of imaginary years now? Strange.

Or you can do the formulas for Nechunya ben HaKanah. Either way you come to the dawn of homo sapiens, civilzations and modern man!

Taking aplologetics to a new level of absurdity, I see.

Oh, by the way Dad what exactly is hyper-evolution? I'm interested! What is it? Like that Star Trek genesis bomb thingy? Joking! What is it exactly can you explain?

[/quote:49e5b]
Evolution now works a certain way. I suggest it worked a different way in the past. I think there was a seperation after the flood a century or so, of the spiritual from the physical, leaving us where we are, in the physical only. That is why things were very different then. As different as the bible talks about from the present. For ecxample, no radioactive decay type different, and light that got here in hours from far stars different.

 

[dad]

dad,

It seems like you subscribe to theistic evolution, or progressive evolution and frankly I don’t by either. The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is pretty clear... such ‘comprises’ cannot work. I take Genesis literally by they way, the context and grammar structure and such makes it clear it is not a metaphor or simile.

-Note: Liberal Theologians may say something different but I am discussed with liberal theology and frankly I don't think it is even Christian.

I take it pretty literal as well. I believe the world was made 6000 years ago, as the bible indicates, and in Adam and Eve, and the flood, etc. The evolution I refer to is in the adapting of creatures God made in the last several thousand years. I simply think the old world was so different, that the one type on the ark could have 'evolved' or adapted to the new world, and cold, or hot, etc, as needed very quickly. Like elephants becoming mammoths when the ice age came to be, yet in Africa, they adapted differently, as needed.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Ok, now tell me…no give me proof that DNA information has been added to create these ‘adaptations’.

 

[dad]

Ok, now tell me…no give me proof that DNA information has been added to create these ‘adaptations’.

I don't really know that it was or wasn't. Seems like the creatures were already made, so they had all the right stuff already. But they needed to adapt to a changing world, so what did that take? New information, or rearranging some they already were equipped with?
Personally I could see either if the evidence demanded it. Why? Because I think that the spiritual may have affected DNA somehow. Almost a bit like instincts. Creatures are born with them, and they can be strong. Nevertheless, look at how the ark of the covenant was carried by a cow one time. It was affected by the Spirit, and it's new instinct was to do what the creator needed done, even though it's baby was crying for mommy it took the ark where it needed to go! In the flood, perhaps some agressiveness was temporarily overruled as well. I hear in a disaster, like a fire, animals may hole up in a cave or someplace, and temporarily have a kind of truce. They get along together. Then, as the disaster passes, they return to normal.
Point is if the past was merged, spiritual and physical, maybe animals were more in touch with the spiritual for directions, and 'instinct'. After the split, they may have been left kind of with their last program so to speak, rather than constant updating that went on before. If this were true, maybe the DNA was somewhat similarly affected? If it needed a tweak to adapt, maybe it happened almost right away? Hyper evolution, in other words.

 

[Solo]

dad,

It seems like you subscribe to theistic evolution, or progressive evolution and frankly I don’t by either. The Bible, as far as I am concerned, is pretty clear... such ‘comprises’ cannot work. I take Genesis literally by they way, the context and grammar structure and such makes it clear it is not a metaphor or simile.

-Note: Liberal Theologians may say something different but I am discussed with liberal theology and frankly I don't think it is even Christian.

I am in full agreement with you Nocturnal_Principal_X.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:D

 

[dad]

Dad is all you do is critique others? You never offer any explainations of what you believe? It's strange you love to quote others mistakes, but you yourself never explain, by what it is you mean, even if they ask nice? Why is that! I'm perfectly comfortable with my explainations of Genesis and Jeremiah! There are others to who believe as I do, as far as your links to explainationsof my supposed mistakes, I dont buy into that! I could critique it like you, but what's the point! You won't listen anyways? Oh and you don't have to explain your THEORIES, even though I was interested in hearing them. D..B O.D F..H E..D F..L . Ah, anyways! PEACE I don't wanna start blaspheming God accidently.

Don't take it personal. I just offered my take on this gap thing-more than one creation, Jesus made the day light was business. Don't be so thin skinned. I never thought I hid what I believed or refuse to explain it. Oh well, something was lost in translation I guess. Take a deep breath.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:

 

[dad]

Really? So were suppose to figure out what you believe from from these simple quotes? ...

Well, as far as that gap thing, I think I said a few things, no? Wheres the mystery?

Besides your contradictory, you just don't see it. Jeremiah did speak them words,

No, The Almight Personally spoke them, Jerimiah was just the tool there. It is plain, He refers to Himself there.

just like John was shown the apocalype and Daniel the vision.

Sometimes God takes over and talks directly in the bible. Look at Job, for example.

I quote others on their beliefs on what they say, as fair as they believe, in the fairest nicest manner I can. Then you turn around and say I said? You couldn't have even possibly have read it, knucklehead! If this link at studylight org can only provide the briefiest of explainations, that's pretty pathetic.

So you call me knucklehead, and then make like I was too tough on you?

it's better to look for a preponderance of scripture.
Yea and God speaks also in numbers, MAN CANNOT CHANGE! You know hebrew letters doubled as numbers right! I could explain this to you also, but I know you wouldn't get it!

In a circumspect way, yes numbers are important. But what number is quite important is the number 6 or 7, where He made everything in that many days. He even gave mornings and evenings to be real clear there. Not just big numbers are important. Like the trinity, -3, that's pretty important too.

When something is uncertain, better to look _> to Dad.
No eytomologically it better fit!

When it comes to bible days, there are places you can look.

No it was the primodial ooze from which all life sprang, I DON'T CARE!

Having no shape and form yet on day 1 doesn't mean it spawned creatures. Get real. The creatures come a few days later.

Hey the earth's much older? Why would God Fake it? They can guess, but that don't amount to much! So can you!

No doppy, it isn't old. The present decay and things you base that assumption on throw your sense of time way off kilter, that is all.

Who quoted this, not me? See you just dont Listen?

Try being clear. I can't tell if you flaunt the gappers cause you believe it too, or just for fun.

ENOUGH. Speak to the hand not the face! Bye!!

OK, hand, give your head a shake, that might wake up your face! Bye.