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!

[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution

There are no transitional fossils to suggest evolution is real but it is possible God did use evolution and not only that but there is macro evolution. Wikipedia describes macroevolution as

1:"a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools."

2:"The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it."

3:"Abrupt transformations from a biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water onto land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare."

"The evolutionary course of all horses and related animals is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution."

In a nut shell it's the progress of animal species not the jump from one species to another.

So we know that all the animals we have today were not around back in the beginning for the gradually macro-evolved into what they are now. But does that disprove evolution all together? Who's to say God didn't say to reptile grow feathers and sprout wings and fly or to the fish, climb out of the water and sprout legs? After all some species of fish have full or partial lungs and the mud guppy, even though it's a fish, lives mostly out of the water and breathes through it's skin like an amphibian, and there are dinosaurs with feather though they are not birds and birds legs are very reptilian like. Perhaps there are transitional fossils because God using great power made it instant and through the process of macroevolution individual species formed such as Wolf to Chihuahua.

So what ape to man. No, for those who are believers know that this is the only creation God made that he describes how he created, but were there humans before Adam and Eve? God tells Adam, "Go forth and replenish the Earth." replenish it? what was here before? There must have been early human like beings, looking far different than modern man. God then wiped these humanoids out and created modern man using these creatures as a blue print.

What about the days? The bible says in Day one God did this on day two that and so on but some will say that these days were not 24 hour long days. In fact since God did not create the sun and moon till day four they couldn't be 24 hour long days but what were they. I refer them as steps, step one=day one. How long was a step, no one knows since there is no precise way to date the earth. Well with that out of the way what about day four. On day one was light, day three Plants, why moon and sun on day four and how did plants survive without them and how did he create light in the beginning. Simple for those who are believers. God is all powerful and can do what ever he wants no matter how impossible it seems so if he wants to wait before creating the sun and moon he can do that.

And on a final note a friend of mine said something really insightful about the topic "Not to mention the fact that it says that whenever God created something it said "and He saw that it was good" makes me believe that he evolved things up to his final standards, saw it was good, then moved on to the next things!"

This is just a brief note on what I have come up with and I hope this helps you come up with your own theories and please let me know what you think after all no one is right and no one is wrong.

Portions of this post borrowed from Wikipedia and for more info on Macroevolution visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
 
There are a lot of threads on this topic, which I'd advise perhaps having a browse through. Most of us here have put in our two cents at some point in one or other thread. :)

In reply to your topic question, the short answer is no. :D
 
(Not a Christian) By definition an omnipotent being can do anything.

If you say "If God exists, can he [insert action here]" the answer is ALWAYS yes. So yes, he could have used evolution lol.

I've always found it odd that you take the commandment to sell everything you have and follow Jesus as symbolic but you find the talking snake literal lol.

What's wrong with God using evolution? You get around God killing hundreds of thousands of people for doing pretty much nothing, and killing innocent children with bears by saying that you have to take context into account, why not use the same excuse for genesis?

Denying fact is just pushing people further and further away, it's probably half the reason that Atheism is the fastest growing religious position lol.

Atheists aren't killing Christianity, you are.
 
Rather than just repeat what has already been said so many times, I'd advise that you read the threads. It's primarily to do with what the Bible says God did - i.e. the language of the text - and what the Bible tells us about God's nature and character.
 
Sir Pwn4lot said:
As far as I know only 2 churches are against evolution; the Southern Baptists and one other who's name escapes me.

Which seems ridiculous to me in the first place since evolution is a scientific pursuit, not a religious one. What business does a faith based organization have denouncing scientific fact because of bronze-age mythology? Oh well, they did it with Galileo, and history repeats itself sometimes...
 
coelacanth said:
Sir Pwn4lot said:
As far as I know only 2 churches are against evolution; the Southern Baptists and one other who's name escapes me.

Which seems ridiculous to me in the first place since evolution is a scientific pursuit, not a religious one. What business does a faith based organization have denouncing scientific fact because of bronze-age mythology? Oh well, they did it with Galileo, and history repeats itself sometimes...

No, they made him renounce his science under threat of torture and then placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life, which was a fairly weak punishment compared to what the church did to others.
 
I learned most of what I know of the evolution of reptiles in North Texas from a theologically conservative Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists do not necessarily object to science. Many of them are quite knowledgeable. If you go to Baylor University, the greatest Southern Baptist school in the world, you will find that they teach evolution.
 
think about this, if they days were in fact only 24 hours long than the dinosaurs went extinct just a couple days after being created, now why would God create something and destroy it right afterward
 
The Christian god could have used the process outlined by the theory of evolution to create humans over billions of years leading to the extinction of 99% of species that ever lived through an unimaginably cruel competition for survival (despite his apparent goodness) in the same way that, to this day, Zeus can use electrons to make lightening.

Of course, any god could have used evolution. Maybe Allah did.

Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster used evolution.

Adding god, any god, in this purely ad hoc fashion, adds nothing to anybody's understanding. It only adds to the list of ad hoc assumptions required to support whatever faith one wants to support.

Given the mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, its kind of embarrassing isn't it, to mention the Christian god in the same breath, given the mole hill of bad quality evidence that exists supporting him?
 
Sir Pwn4lot said:
As far as I know only 2 churches are against evolution; the Southern Baptists and one other who's name escapes me.

I would say that most of the hyper conservative/pentacostal churches are against evolution. I know that Assemblies of God are.
 
PillsburyDoughboy said:
There are no transitional fossils to suggest evolution is real

Blatantly false.

I suggest reading "Why Evolution is True", by Jerry Coyne, or "The Greatest Show on Earth", by Richard Dawkins, to learn all one needs to know about the issue of transitional fossils and how their existence is nicely in keeping with the Theory of Evolution. If that doesn't satisfy you, these books are referenced, so you can go directly to the science yourself.
 
AAA said:
PillsburyDoughboy said:
There are no transitional fossils to suggest evolution is real

Blatantly false.

I suggest reading "Why Evolution is True", by Jerry Coyne, or "The Greatest Show on Earth", by Richard Dawkins, to learn all one needs to know about the issue of transitional fossils and how their existence is nicely in keeping with the Theory of Evolution. If that doesn't satisfy you, these books are references, so you can go directly to the science yourself.
Here is a couple of books you show read.
Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box – describe this phenomenon.
Its amazing how evolutionist always try to say how christians or more to the point creationist question evolution. If we raise question or don't see the evidence as they, well then we are attacking science, wrong, I love science always have always will. We are not questioning science but rather questioning those people that look at evolution and say that science supports their theory no questions asked. Again the fossil record does not support this religion. Call it what you want but whenever faith hope or just plain wishful thinking is injected to try and span the huge gaps of said facts.. well thats a religion. ;)
 
freeway01 said:
We are not questioning science but rather questioning those people that look at evolution and say that science supports their theory no questions asked.

Oh, there are plenty of questions being asked and plently of dispute. Just not the kind you're thinking of/wishing for. ;)

freeway01 said:
Again the fossil record does not support this religion.

You seem hopelessly obsessed with fossils. I don't know if you've noticed but as I've told you several times fossils are neither the only nor the most important evidence for Evolution. Even if no fossils were ever found Evolution would be a fact.

freeway01 said:
Call it what you want but whenever faith hope or just plain wishful thinking is injected to try and span the huge gaps of said facts.. well thats a religion. ;)

If that is true about Evolution then it is also true about every other scientific Theory.
So why aren't you attacking those?
 
Quotes from Brokendoll about the ToE:
Oh, there are plenty of questions being asked and plently of dispute. Just not the kind you're thinking of/wishing for. ;)
Let's see, if the questions are being asked of this theory, and this theory is the topic heading, well then I hope they ask the right questions and just don't close their minds because it disputes their beloved evolution. ;) back at ya.
You seem hopelessly obsessed with fossils. I don't know if you've noticed but as I've told you several times fossils are neither the only nor the most important evidence for Evolution. Even if no fossils were ever found Evolution would be a fact
. I seem hopelessly obsessed with the lack of fossils, Of course I am, what else do you have for the theory, After all Darwin said it himself.. no fossils not evolution.
brokendoll on faith based words in evolution:
If that is true about Evolution then it is also true about every other scientific Theory.
So why aren't you attacking those?
you mean like how we started off with a BANG or whatever seems more plausible now, and then billions of years later in a primortal soup "presto" a complete living cell ready to work. Then how that single cell has evolution into every living thing on this planet. now thats a theory I can run with. PLUS.. read the topic heading again.. no need to attack the evolution of the beer bottle here.. :confused
 
freeway01 said:
Here is a couple of books you show read.
Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box

LOL - good one.

Since writing his book, Denton has changed his mind about evolution. He now embraces the Theory that he knows is not in crisis.

Behe's work has been thoroughly debunked. Irreducible complexity is an old schtick from the 1800's that has been shown over and over again to be pure nonsense.

Here's a list of transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils
 
Since writing his book, Denton has changed his mind about evolution. He now embraces the Theory that he knows is not in crisis.

From Denton's "Nature's Destiny":
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

Page xvii-xviii

Behe's work has been thoroughly debunked. Irreducible complexity is an old schtick from the 1800's that has been shown over and over again to be pure nonsense.

In fact, even Behe now admits that irreducible complexity can evolve. He just thinks it's unlikely. Behe's been on the sidelines since his testimony in the Dover trial, where he admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is a science.
 
freeway01 said:
Quotes from Brokendoll about the ToE:
Oh, there are plenty of questions being asked and plently of dispute. Just not the kind you're thinking of/wishing for. ;)
Let's see, if the questions are being asked of this theory, and this theory is the topic heading, well then I hope they ask the right questions and just don't close their minds because it disputes their beloved evolution. ;) back at ya.

Ah, but you see, here is the real tickler: The questions you want asked have already been answered and there is no need to dwell on them anymore. The fact that you don't like those answers is of no consequence to science.

freeway01 said:
I seem hopelessly obsessed with the lack of fossils, Of course I am, what else do you have for the theory, After all Darwin said it himself.. no fossils not evolution.

As I have shown you in another tread there are a multitude of different types of evidence for Evolution from many different scientific disciplines. Darwin himself was well aware that there were other types of evidence as anyone actually reading his books would know. But we have also progressed some since Darwin's time. For instance, unike Darwin, we now know the medium of heredity, namely DNA which was a complete mystery when Darwin was alive.

freeway01 said:
you mean like how we started off with a BANG or whatever seems more plausible now, and then billions of years later in a primortal soup "presto" a complete living cell ready to work. Then how that single cell has evolution into every living thing on this planet. now thats a theory I can run with. PLUS.. read the topic heading again.. no need to attack the evolution of the beer bottle here.. :confused

The question was intended for you personally. You (and other creationists) seem to have a beef with Evolution (obviously), but you are not being consistent. If you actually had a problem with the evidence (as many of you claim) then you should also have a problem with every other scientific theory on the planet. But for some reason you do not... Now why is that I wonder? ;)
 
The Barbarian said:
Behe's been on the sidelines since his testimony in the Dover trial, where he admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is a science.

Were those the exact words used int he trial regarding science and astrology?
 
Back
Top