D
Dave Slayer
Guest
Did God use evolution to get us here? Please provide well thought out Biblical answers to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
I found this article and thought it made good sense and posted once, may be it is good a second time around. Bubba
http://www.angelfire.com/nuggetsfromgodsword/index.html
"Is the creation account in Genesis literal?
Hebrew for "day"
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).
Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.
In Hebrew, should the word "yome" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.
First-time use not symbolic
Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.
This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it first has a literal meaning.
For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.
Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He created it.
Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is to imply that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.
The Bible itself defines "day"
Many Christians forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to let the Bible interpret the Bible.
Genesis 1:5
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".
The phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning", is used for each of the other five days of creation. This shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).
Incidentally, those who argue that the word "day" in the above verse means millions of years must answer the question, "What is a night?"
Daylight without the sun?
But how could there be day and night when the sun was not created yet, until day four?
The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.
The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.
Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.
Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years
Our seven-day week
Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.
Exodus 20:9
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
The reason for this is found in verse 11:
Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.
So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same for Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week. We don't work for six million years and then rest for 1 million years!
What are "years" and "seasons" then?
Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
If the word "day" here is not to be taken literally, then, to be consistent in our interpretation, neither should the words "seasons", "days" and "years". What do they mean then?
Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-31 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.
If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand Adam's lifespan of "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?
Covenant with day and night
Jeremiah 33:25,26
25 This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "
God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.
However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?
A day as a thousand years?
2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.
But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original definition in Genesis 1:5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.
In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is not bound by time.
Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.
The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.
Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man. Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying.
Bloodshed and death
When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to cover their sins with fig leaves -- a works religion (and a reason why Jesus cursed the fig tree in Matthew 21:19).
God had to clothe them with animal skin, instead, which meant that an animal was killed -- a blood sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
So, according to the Bible, blood was shed only after man sinned. There were no killings before that. Also, man and animals were originally instructed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man was only allowed to kill and eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3).
Evolution, however, teaches that there was bloodshed and death ("survival of the fittest") for millions of years before man existed.
Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally
Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.
What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?
As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.
Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:
Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"
Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.
Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?
And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.
Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman."
http://www.angelfire.com/nuggetsfromgodsword/index.html
"Is the creation account in Genesis literal?
Hebrew for "day"
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).
Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.
In Hebrew, should the word "yome" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.
First-time use not symbolic
Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.
This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it first has a literal meaning.
For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.
Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He created it.
Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is to imply that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.
The Bible itself defines "day"
Many Christians forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to let the Bible interpret the Bible.
Genesis 1:5
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".
The phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning", is used for each of the other five days of creation. This shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).
Incidentally, those who argue that the word "day" in the above verse means millions of years must answer the question, "What is a night?"
Daylight without the sun?
But how could there be day and night when the sun was not created yet, until day four?
The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.
The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.
Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.
Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years
Our seven-day week
Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.
Exodus 20:9
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
The reason for this is found in verse 11:
Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.
So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same for Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week. We don't work for six million years and then rest for 1 million years!
What are "years" and "seasons" then?
Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
If the word "day" here is not to be taken literally, then, to be consistent in our interpretation, neither should the words "seasons", "days" and "years". What do they mean then?
Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-31 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.
If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand Adam's lifespan of "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?
Covenant with day and night
Jeremiah 33:25,26
25 This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "
God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.
However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?
A day as a thousand years?
2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.
But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original definition in Genesis 1:5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.
In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is not bound by time.
Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.
The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.
Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man. Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying.
Bloodshed and death
When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to cover their sins with fig leaves -- a works religion (and a reason why Jesus cursed the fig tree in Matthew 21:19).
God had to clothe them with animal skin, instead, which meant that an animal was killed -- a blood sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
So, according to the Bible, blood was shed only after man sinned. There were no killings before that. Also, man and animals were originally instructed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man was only allowed to kill and eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3).
Evolution, however, teaches that there was bloodshed and death ("survival of the fittest") for millions of years before man existed.
Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally
Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.
What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?
As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.
Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:
Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"
Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.
Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?
And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.
Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman."
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
Free said:
When I speak of evoultion, I am referring to "macro evolution. That means an animal can change into another kind of animal. In other words, a pig can eventually evolve into a bird. Or, a fish can eventually turn into a chimpanzee, and a chimpanzee can eventually evolve into a human.
researcher
Member
Dave Slayer said:
How about, a Chinese person having an African baby?
Lol. This kind of evolution also? 
R
rcorlew
Guest
One real problem with the "Gap" or "Long Day" theories is the age given Adam later would not match up to the first creation.
Let's say the argument is that a day of creation is 10,000 years giving a total time of creation of 70,000 years. Then you read in Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died. That would pose a real problem, if one day of creation took 10,000 years, Adam's age would not be 930, it would be 10,930 which would be a huge variation from the original age.
Another problem posed by evolution comes from the origination of sin in all mankind from Adam. We can clearly see that micro evolution does indeed occur by studying the sharks off of Bikini Island, but the evolution is prevalent throughout the entire population simultaneously, not from a single organism. If evolution were truth, mankind would not have evolved from a single common parent, but from an entire population because the mitigating circumstances for one to evolve or adapt would be prevalent throughout the entire community causing the same adaptations. This would then lead not to one common parent for humanity, but a rather a common parental or ancestral community for humanity. This problem becomes amplified given that since there is not one common ancestor, the likelihood of sin to become prevalent throughout the community because of the actions by only one member of that community would become hypothetical or rationalization rather than fact.
Unless we all came from one common set of parents, who were the only people on earth, who committed the original sin before any other people had yet to be born, there then would be a possibility that people today could trace their genealogy to an ancestor who had not been born of the person who committed the original sin, thus not been born into sin. Thus by not being born into sin would not require the same plan for salvation as all the other people.
Oh not to mention the fact that if evolution occurred, there are numerous places where Jesus quoted the account of creation as thesis for his discussions which would indicate Jesus was basing His ministry and Truth on mythological evidence which is not Truth but rather hypothetical at best and by this not be Truth as being described by factual evidence. Jesus performed miracles because God does not expect us to believe Jesus is who He says He was without evidence, this is the same as God giving evidence the the account of creation as to why we need His salvation.
Let's say the argument is that a day of creation is 10,000 years giving a total time of creation of 70,000 years. Then you read in Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died. That would pose a real problem, if one day of creation took 10,000 years, Adam's age would not be 930, it would be 10,930 which would be a huge variation from the original age.
Another problem posed by evolution comes from the origination of sin in all mankind from Adam. We can clearly see that micro evolution does indeed occur by studying the sharks off of Bikini Island, but the evolution is prevalent throughout the entire population simultaneously, not from a single organism. If evolution were truth, mankind would not have evolved from a single common parent, but from an entire population because the mitigating circumstances for one to evolve or adapt would be prevalent throughout the entire community causing the same adaptations. This would then lead not to one common parent for humanity, but a rather a common parental or ancestral community for humanity. This problem becomes amplified given that since there is not one common ancestor, the likelihood of sin to become prevalent throughout the community because of the actions by only one member of that community would become hypothetical or rationalization rather than fact.
Unless we all came from one common set of parents, who were the only people on earth, who committed the original sin before any other people had yet to be born, there then would be a possibility that people today could trace their genealogy to an ancestor who had not been born of the person who committed the original sin, thus not been born into sin. Thus by not being born into sin would not require the same plan for salvation as all the other people.
Oh not to mention the fact that if evolution occurred, there are numerous places where Jesus quoted the account of creation as thesis for his discussions which would indicate Jesus was basing His ministry and Truth on mythological evidence which is not Truth but rather hypothetical at best and by this not be Truth as being described by factual evidence. Jesus performed miracles because God does not expect us to believe Jesus is who He says He was without evidence, this is the same as God giving evidence the the account of creation as to why we need His salvation.
For more information on the GAP theory look in this thread it is very informative.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=33770&hilit=gap+theory
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=33770&hilit=gap+theory
researcher said:How about, a Chinese person having an African baby?
A chinese person and an african person could have a baby and I guess it could look "african".. Really depends on gene expression.
Ever read the article about the two "mixed" parents who had twins? One had wavey blonde hair blue eyes and light skin while the other had dark hair, brown eyes, and dark skin. And they were obviously fraternal so they were pretty much no different than any other siblings. It was pretty cool.
G
Gabe
Guest
animal said:researcher said:How about, a Chinese person having an African baby?
A chinese person and an african person could have a baby and I guess it could look "african".. Really depends on gene expression.
Ever read the article about the two "mixed" parents who had twins? One had wavey blonde hair blue eyes and light skin while the other had dark hair, brown eyes, and dark skin. And they were obviously fraternal so they were pretty much no different than any other siblings. It was pretty cool.
I caught the end of a documentary a while back, about a set of twins (one black and the other white) born to white parents. It's amazing. :yes
John said:
There isn't much different between a small winged dinosaur with feathers and our current definition of what it means to be a "bird". And there's even less difference between an ape and a human. From the looks of anamensis, aferensis, and up (or whatever those individuals may have considered themselves to be) we can tell our ancestor wasn't that much different than us either.
Wrong Assumptions Yield Wrong Answers.
the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (spelling?) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:
1. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.
2. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!
3. Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur."
Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated.
Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator.
the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (spelling?) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:
1. Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.
2. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!
3. Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur."
Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated.
Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator.
D
Dave Slayer
Guest
animal said:
Kent Hovind does hold to much of these ideas, and I believe they are correct. Hovind may not always be correct, but what man is? Just because someone is wrong about some stuff doesn't mean they are wrong about everything.
Hope you feel better soon though.
Caroline H
Member
Actually there is a huge difference. The very makeup of a feather is incredibly complicated, and birds must have special air sacks connected to their lungs in order to fly, hollow bones, etc...reptiles and birds are extremely different.animal said:
I don't see anywhere in the Bible that supports evolution, but I do see it contradicting it. In my opinion, theistic evolution is just a way to "straddle the fence" on two completely different and conflicting worldviews and forces Scripture to compromise. I say no, He didn't use it at all because He didn't need to