[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution To Get Us Here?

[researcher]

How about, a Chinese person having an African baby? Lol. This kind of evolution also?

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.

Yes. Probably not surprising for this to happen with a mixed couple. I've seen the rare "same ethnicity" story on a couple who had a different color baby. Although, far from the norm. They chalked it up to genetics from one of the couple's past. I would say either that or someone is lying about something. I think Maury Povich does maternity tests for people in those cases.

At any rate, the assumption would be that Adam and Eve were the same ethnicity and reproduced the same also.

 

[khalou]

Did God use evolution to get us here? Please provide well thought out Biblical answers to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!

There are no Biblical answers to this question.

Evolution is the product of our human investigation. The evidence is there. If the evidence is there, then God wanted it to be there.

As I said in another thread, science seeks the truth through falsification. It seeks to disprove what it says. If there is no way to disprove something, then it isn't scientific.

Evolution has withstood that test for so long that evolution no longer has any real detractors. Evoltion has indeed occured.

It not only survives the constant attempts by science to disprove it, but it also passes the test of predictability that science demands. "If Evolution were to be true, then we will find such and such". Each and every time this statement has been tested by new technology or new discoveries, it has passed that test.

Either evolution is a test that God has placed before us, and we are expected to ignore our own God-given ability to trust our eyes, or it happened.

k

 

[Dave Slayer]

Either evolution is a test that God has placed before us, and we are expected to ignore our own God-given ability to trust our eyes, or it happened.

Or the devil has greatly deceived us. The Bible has also stood the test of time. Until the 1700's, no one believed in evolution. The theory did not yet exist. If evolution were true, why didn't the people before the 1700's believe it? It's hard to believe that for thousands of years, people were dumb before evolution got here. Last time I checked, the majority of the USA believes in Biblical creation. At one time, creation was the only thing taught in public schools as far as our origins are concerned. Then somewhere along the line, evolution took over. I believe evolution seems so popular because of perception. With help from the media and public schools, evolution seems to be what most people believe in. The media has a lot of power, more than we give them credit for. And since the media is getting more and more liberal, this doesn't sueprise me. They can make people believe what is not true just by simply repeating themselves. Hitler has been quoted as saying:

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it."

A lot of people put so much stock in man made science. How can an imperfect being create a perfect theory? People can believe evolution all they want. But, there are missng links that are still missing.

The Bible records how everything came to be, and that should settle it for us. It may not make sense in our finite minds, but we serve an infinite God, and with Him all thinks make sense. In my opinion, it takes much more faith to believe we evolved out some pre-organic soup some millions of years ago than it is to believe that God created everything "just like that". I serve a God who got it right the first time. God said "let there be" and there was. A god who needs millions of years of chance and mutations, trial and error, to create something is a confused god.

 

[jwu]

Until the 1700's, no one believed in evolution. The theory did not yet exist. If evolution were true, why didn't the people before the 1700's believe it? It's hard to believe that for thousands of years, people were dumb before evolution got here.

Were people dumb for not knowing about electricity back in that time either, or for not knowing about nuclear physics? I hope you see that that kind of reasoning holds no water.

Last time I checked, the majority of the USA believes in Biblical creation. At one time, creation was the only thing taught in public schools as far as our origins are concerned. Then somewhere along the line, evolution took over.

The quotas are roughly equal for evolution and creationism in the USA. This graph is telling however:

"Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow."

A lot of people put so much stock in man made science. How can an imperfect being create a perfect theory? People can believe evolution all they want. But, there are missng links that are still missing.

No theory in science is ever considered perfect. And there always will be missing links - anytime a new key fossil is found, this creates two new gaps - one before it, and one after it. Fossils however are only secondary evidence anyway...the real evidence is genetics.
However, which skulls on this image are human, which are non-human?

A modern human skull on the very right is not visible on the forum, click this link for the full image:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... inids2.jpg

The Bible records how everything came to be, and that should settle it for us.

Well, methinks God gave us brains, and that alone is a sufficient hint that he wants us to use them. Just stopping thinking at "the Bible says so" is somewhat lazy in my humble opinion. I want to know *how exactly* God did it, and i am willing to revise my interpretation of the Bible if the evidence shows that He did it in another way that i previously thought.

I serve a God who got it right the first time. God said "let there be" and there was. A god who needs millions of years of chance and mutations, trial and error, to create something is a confused god.

Six days - why couldn't He do it in an instant? And if He got it right on the first try, why did God get tired of His creation, and supposedly tried to drown it in Noah's flood? You see, that line of reasoning is self-contradictory.

Moreover, and more importantly, what does time even mean to God? I don't think our human perception of it applies to the one who made time in first instance.

Well...and of course mutations do occur, that's a fact of life. I find a creation that can take care of itself by adapting to changing circumstances to be much more marvelous than one that is bound to one specific biological niche.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

It's always astonishing to learn that people actually think that's what evolution is. Creationism breeds in ignorance.

The evidence shows that common descent is a fact. And there's nothing whatever in the Bible that denies it.

The Bible doesn't mention things like evolution and protons. And yet we can show that they are facts. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship; it is not a science text.

 

[John]

double post.

 

[John]

It's always astonishing to learn that people actually think that's what evolution is. Creationism breeds in ignorance.

Better then the willful ignorance of evolutionist ;)

The evidence shows that common descent is a fact. And there's nothing whatever in the Bible that denies it.

B$, the evidence like I've said a good 20 time sin the last week is circumstantial and subject to interpretation , most of those skulls that JWU loves tp parade around are mostly human the others are ape like. That proves absolutely NOTHING. Only a fool would believe such blatant garbage.

The Bible doesn't mention things like evolution and protons. And yet we can show that they are facts. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship; it is not a science text.

Not a science text correct, it is however a history book.

 

[John]

Anyway the OP:

Did God use evolution to get us here? Please provide well thought out Biblical answers to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!

The Bible says nothing because God did not use evolution to get us here, end of discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

Theologians have long understood that "yom" did not mean "day" specifically. It could mean anything from a moment to forever. The "days" in Genesis are not literal 24 hour days, as the early Christians noted, because it's absurd to talk of literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

For a Christian, evolution is just the way God happened to do it. He does most everything by natural means in this world.

And it's O.K. He's doing it the right way. Trust Him.

 

[John]

And it's O.K. He's doing it the right way. Trust Him.

I do, perhaps you should try sometimes.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And it's O.K. He's doing it the right way. Trust Him.

I do, perhaps you should try sometimes.

I think you sincerely want to. But something is holding you back from fully accepting His works as they are.

 

[Barbarian]

B$, the evidence like I've said a good 20 time sin the last week is circumstantial and subject to interpretation , most of those skulls that JWU loves tp parade around are mostly human the others are ape like. That proves absolutely NOTHING. Only a fool would believe such blatant garbage.

The fact that even professional creationists cannot consistently draw the line between humans and other primates is a reluctant admission by them that there is no dividing line. There are only innumerable transitions.

That's how it is. And nothing in Scripture denies this fact.

 

[Dave Slayer]

The fact that even professional creationists cannot consistently draw the line between humans and other primates is a reluctant admission by them that there is no dividing line. There are only innumerable transitions.

That's how it is. And nothing in Scripture denies this fact.

And nothing in scripture denies the fact that God created apes as apes and humans as humans. Adam and Eve were created as human beings, and apes were created as apes.

Lugnuts on a Chevy will al so fit a Pontiac or Buick. Does this mean they evolved from a Honda?
Perhaps the reason why apes and humans share many similarities is because they have the same designer.

 

[Dave Slayer]

The Barbarian, I challenge you to produce a rebuttal for the following article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lly-evolve

 

[Barbarian]

The Barbarian, I challenge you to produce a rebuttal for the following article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lly-evolve

Sure. I really need to archive this stuff, so I don't have to write the same thing over and over. Let's go to the first major goof:

Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study one.

Here's a good overview of that:

The following charts give a brief overview of several notable primate fossil finds relating to human evolution. As there are thousands of fossils, this overview is not meant to be complete, but does show some of the most important finds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils
(about 116 major finds)

Let's go on...

In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that are relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel (the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have thicker enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic in man.

Not surprisingly, Australopithecines are intermediate in both of these between men and apes:

Note chimp is u-shaped, humans sort of parabolic, and Australopithecines in between. Precisely what evolutionary theory predicts. Let's go on to the next misconception...

This race of men (Neandertals) was characterized by prominent eyebrow ridges (like modern Australian Aborigines), a low forehead, a long narrow skull, a protruding upper jaw and a strong lower jaw with a short chin. They were deep-chested, large-boned individuals with a powerful build. It should be emphasized, however, that none of these features fall outside the range of normal human anatomy. Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial capacity) of Neandertal man was actually larger than average for that of modern man, though this is rarely emphasized.

Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies. They have larger brains for one important reason; they were much more burly than we are, and all that extra muscle mass requires extra brain cells to operate. They aren't really much different than we are, in encephalization quotient. And they shouldn't be. We and they are two different offshoots from the same ancestor.

Neandertals, BTW, had a rather narrow, restricted shoulder joint, that apparently made it difficult to throw things. They seem to never have developed any projectile weapons. And they were remarkably conservative culturally, keeping the same tool kit for a very long time, with only one exception, apparently from contact with other humans.

The most effective and devastating refutation of this sort of thing is to bring in a selection of fossil human, hominid, and ape bones and skulls and ask creationists to sort them. Turns out, they can't do it, because the numerous transitions are so close.

No problem.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Barbarian, thank you for offering a refutation. I still am not convinced in evolution, but that is okay. I am happy that you took the time to provide an alternative viewpoint. However, I am afraid I will have to agree to disagree.

God Bless!

Dave

 

[Godbless]

Did God use evolution to get us here? Please provide well thought out Biblical answers to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!

Did God use evolution to get us here? Please provide well thought out Biblical answers to support your view. Thanks and God Bless!

Hello Dave Slayer
One day to God light is a thousand years to Earths light, So it took 6000 years for our Father through Christ to astablish growth and formation. I see a cell that developes into a human after nine months in the womb, and how incredible the stages of development of the foetus is.
Who to say that the earth is not the egg in the womb (universes) and our Father is not our fertiliser. The question then would be,were we created as children or models? If we were created as models (image) only then we would be created in an instance. That was not so why?
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

These were created first before Mankind, not all at the same instance but over time.


1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1 :But if we were created as children (likeness)then we were created over time then moulded to Their image (shape) after Their likness not before.
First in the likeness substance of fertilisation secondly in the image of shape.
Conclusion over time.
Next question I would ask: where did the earth originate from? We know God created the heavens and the Earth. Where did the earth and water originate from before our Fathers spirit was moving over the surface of the waters?.

 

[John]

Hello Dave Slayer
One day to God light is a thousand years to Earths light, So it took 6000 years for our Father through Christ to astablish growth and formation.......

This has already been address many times as has proved to be false.

 

[atheiststudent]

Thanks Dave for posting an interesting article and Barbarian for carefully addressing some of the key points. One thing I find interesting about creationist writing is that it generally uses terms or turns of phrase that grind discussion between creationists and scientists to a halt. This may be unintentional, but often results in readers who fancy themselves science savvy immediately dismissing the author as ignorant.

From what I've read, this phrase from the article Dave linked is fairly typical: 'Nonetheless, evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof†of our ape ancestry.'

No scientist will use the word 'proof' except in reference to mathematics. Science can't prove theories, only disprove them. Even things we accept, like gravity, are only theories. If you're going to debate a scientist, never tell them they don't have proof of their theory, they will just smile and nod (and many will assume you don't understand a thing about science). You want to say something like, 'the evidence does not support your theory', 'there are other interpretations of your findings', 'you have no evidence to support your claims', or if you really have them in a corner 'this counterexample disproves your theory.'

It's a little point, but I know it results in a lot of articles being put down halfway through reading.

 

[freeway]

No God did not use evolution to get us where we are today. I know this has been hashed over and over, yet here we are again.. Its is fun though and educational. Question how did the 2009 automobile get here? did it just show up out of nowhere, No we have evidence from the very first automobile to the current. Unlike humans we have no evidence to show how evolution brought us here .. none.. where is all the missing links... there's a small list of so-called links and tons of theories but none have paned out. If there where these so called missing links "and there aren't" they would be plaster in ever museum across the land to end this type of debates..