[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution

[Barbarian]

Now what gives you the right to go changing the scriptures?

As you saw, I object to changing scriptures. That's why I don't accept YE, which contradicts God's word in Genesis.

There are many questions unaswered in evolution.

Indeed there are. There are entire journals dedicated to the remaining questions about evolution, just as there all for all real sciences. If we answer all the questions, I'm out of a job.

And there are thousands that have been answered and are against evolution, even though they use to be the proof for evolution

Sounds interesting. Bring up a couple of the ones you think are most compelling, and we'll talk about them.

Now. I have been wondering do you believe in the Bible (@barbarian)?

I just showed you what the Bible says. Unlike many people, I believe all of it, without reservation.

You just interpate things differently? Like adding things...?

I'd avoid doing that, if I were you. That's what got the Seventh-Day Adventists to invent YE creationism.

I suggest you look up the last few verses of Revelation. I think its like the last 5. If you don't have a Bible, you've obviously have internet access so you can look it up on the internet.

You're perhaps confusing the Book of Revelations with the whole Bible. But I'd agree that YE creationism has added considerably to scripture to justify their new doctrines.

Ahem. Where in Genesis 1:24 does it say, "by nature"?

God says that the earth brought forth living things. No "life ex nihilo." He used nature to make life.

Now...if we did evolve from some sort of animal, then why does God put us in charge?

Because we aren't our bodies. Unlike the others, God breathed into man and made him a living spirit.

Okay heres I go again...another explanation. Genesis 3:19 says, ""for dust you are and to dust you will return." Try putting in apes for that sentance....for apes you are and to apes you will return. Nope. That doesn't make sense. Simple as that. It is an impossible interpation.

It wasn't just humans. God says all living things were formed that way.

By earth, could just mean like...eating plants from earth.

No. That would be an addition to scripture. It says the earth brought forth living things, not "the earth nourished living things." We are all created by God. He just uses natural means to make our physical bodies.

 

[Barbarian]

Revelation 22: 3 No longer will there be a curse upon anything. For the throne of God and of the Lamb will be there, and his servants will worship him. 4 And they will see his face, and his name will be written on their foreheads. 5 And there will be no night there—no need for lamps or sun—for the Lord God will shine on them. And they will reign forever and ever.

This is just to show you God does not need to create the sun first, or last or what however we think it should or has to be done.

You're confusing "big light" with "morning." Not all big lights are mornings. Only the appearance of the sun is morning.

Here God is telling his people there is no need for sun, for God will be their light,, umm interesting, do you not think so.. again.. your theory of evolution and billion of years needed for man to evolve just doesn't add up..

Nothing in scripture rules out evolution. Comes down to evidence. Evolution has it. You don't. That's pretty much the end of it.

 

[jasoncran]

a natural means that seems to be random. odd if i want to go somewhere do travel in circles and randomness to get there. i take the direct path. the lord is all knowing, why would he choose such a clumsy ineffient process!. he is in the past and the present and the future at the same time. unless you dont think that's true.

we cant understand the world was perfect and no death. when the curse came this changed everything.

 

[logical bob]

Science can deal only with observables. Have you ever seen evolution take place? Has anyone else ever ruly seen evolution take place?

Yes. We see it in the emergence of MRSA, VRSA and other drug-resistant micro-organisms. It happens quickly enough to watch because bacteria reproduce quickly, they have a higher frequency of mutations than more complex organisms and the sudden application of antibiotics makes for a very extreme form of selection pressure.

 

[Barbarian]

i take the direct path. the lord is all knowing, why would he choose such a clumsy ineffient process!.

Turns out, it's not. Engineers are beginning to realize that evolutionary processes work better than design for very complicated problems. Genetic algorithms are now solving problems that previously couldn't be handled by design.

As usual, God knew best.

 

[jasoncran]

so let me guess. we build by randomn patterns then.
is that what you are saying?

well that explains the failure of many parts on things that i work on.

to wit;
mighty fine plastic parts used for pulleys.
mighty fine location of the control arm bushings that are near the exhaust.

toyota failure on the accelarotor.

ford mighty fine effiecient of adding three more tps sensor that are used to tell the postiion of the throttle. when that fails which they do.(not often) no gas at all. two motors to move the throttle plate

design to fail. i have an engineer friends. we do this a lot.

 

[jasoncran]

the scary thought is this, we have had several ccc. mac garbage truck and others that use the wireless accelerator fail in mid traffic, the dont acceralte just idle.

where rick when you need him. electronic is his field. yes, mr barbarian we do build things to fail. god originaly didnt. if he did then we the need to curse the creation and tell adam and eve that they would die if they eat the fruit. they would die anyway.

so if you believe in evolution then we are still in the genesis phase as we are still being created as a race.

 

[freeway]

by jasoncran

so if you believe in evolution then we are still in the genesis phase as we are still being created as a race.

thats worth quoting

 

[jasoncran]

my pleasure

it makes sense theologically as what is to say that we wont be wiped out and replace by another species.if evolution is true.

 

[Barbarian]

We have evolved since historical times. There are many alleles with us now, some of them quite useful, that did not exist in Christ's time. It looks as though we won't be replaced by another species so much as grow into another species if time permits. We've already done that; archaic H. sapiens blends nicely into H. ergaster/H. erectus.

 

[jasoncran]

We have evolved since historical times. There are many alleles with us now, some of them quite useful, that did not exist in Christ's time. It looks as though we won't be replaced by another species so much as grow into another species if time permits. We've already done that; archaic H. sapiens blends nicely into H. ergaster/H. erectus.

awefuly strong asertion since the species have on the earth for billions of yrs.

what species didnt exist then the time christ?

and whose to say that the we wont die out?

 

[freeway]

The whole premise of evolution is build upon the assumption that the earth is billions of years old. That the creation was not 7 days but, what? millions of years. Without this huge amount of time, which ToE needs "if that were true" then nothing can evolve to become something else. I have never seen any evidence of ToE. The bible does not counter-dick its self. Here is one point in question, IF God used evolution and took millions of years or thousand or even hundred to get work done. Then here is a problem from the bible itself:
Exodus 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor and do all your work and rest the seventh day...FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord CREATED the Heavens and the Earth and ALL that in them is and rested the 7th day...
Again God did not use evolution, But Created all fully functional beings, plant, animals...life... and said be fruitful and multiply

 

[freeway]

We have evolved since historical times. There are many alleles with us now, some of them quite useful, that did not exist in Christ's time. It looks as though we won't be replaced by another species so much as grow into another species if time permits. We've already done that; archaic H. sapiens blends nicely into H. ergaster/H. erectus.

Big statement, show me where one species is changing into another, not color, or hair, but actually changing from "monkey to man... yea the gene pool can get scrambled, but humans will alway give birth to humans. Same as with monkey, dogs, cats. etc...etc.. :bigfrown

 

[jasoncran]

when did we change from homo sapien to the other, that's news as that wouldnt make christ our near kinsmen redeemer!

that like saying if christ came as monkey and died on the cross for his monkey peeps and we are those alleles then we are saved when the bible is meticuious on his being related to all men. so that the near kinsmen redeemer can be performed. all gentiles are through the other two sons of noah, and all jews go through hem.

 

[Faith Hope Love]

Hello everyone again. I see alot of my questions were answered lets talk about it...Okay just one or two, but still

If talk is all we have to go on, then we have no were to go.

Now heres some thing that was used for evolution. It was the theory used for acquired characteristics...Anywasy this is just one example. I wrote this little summary thing awhile ago....

Ever heard of Jean Baptiste Lamarck? Well if you haven't he was a French biologist of the early 1800's. Lamarck was the one who proposed the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is used as a method of biological evolution. These acquired characteristics are traits that have been caused by an organism's enviroment. To proof his point Lamarck used the giraffes' long necks. He simply supposed that long long ago giraffes all had short necks. Then a drought came which destoryed many of the low-growing plants. To survive many of the animals ate the lower leaves of the trees. Since the lower leaves were eaten by the short animals, the short necked giraffes stretched to eat the upper leaves of all the trees. Eventually, the giraffes necks and legs became longer until the modern giraffes came into being. Lamarck's theory also states that an animal can lose a feature through the lack of use or disease.

The problem is is that an organisms acquired traits do not change the organism's genetic material. See, if a woman pierces her ears, she will not have babys with pierced earlobes. Her acquired characteristic did not change her genes. If a man lifts wights and builds up some large muscles, the son is must exercise if he wants to have muscles like his father. August Weismann "de-tailed" mice to test the theory by Lamarck. (Since the mouse was no longer using the tail then it should have had babys without it) Yet after 22 generations later not one tailess mouse had been born! The same is with ears and tails of certian breeds of dogs. The Padaung tribe in Burma(sorry guess it wasn't Africa), had an interest in long necks. It was considered a sign of feminine beauty. There necks look longer because the rings have been stacked between there shoulders and there neck. The rings compress the check by pushing the collar bones and the top of the ribcage down. According to Lamarck's theory Padaung girls outh to be born with their rib cages already pushed down. In light of all this and other evidence evolutionists have admitted that the theory of inheritance of acquired charaeristics is false

Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Michael Rafaday, James Maxwell, and Louis Pasteur were just a few of the many great scientist who believed in divine creation. Evolution was accepted by people who did so for philosophical reasons; they wanted to remove God fromt the picture. Although lots of people had a much simpler reason: they believed that it was scientific. Darwin's philosophy of evolution really had little to do with science itself. In fact, one of Darwin's first supporters was a liberal Anglican clergyman and socialist, Charles Kingsley, he whorked hard to intergrate the ideas of evolution into Christian practive. Most scientist though were very skeptical of Darwin's theory because they realised it was most speculation.

Problems with evolution:
Lack of transitional forms, even if God started it all there is none.
No true "missing links" have been found. See if evolution had occured with God or without there would be millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transitions of kinds of organisms into all the different kinds. Yet we have yet to find one.
Even in the newer idea of punctuated equilibrium, there has never been any proof of people seeing this happen. Also the fossils are remain essentually the same from the first apperance to the last apperance.
David B. Kitts, a zoologist says, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide the..."

Now this really doesn't prove evolution right or wrong, but it makes an extremely good point.

 

[Faith Hope Love]

[quote="Faith Hope Love":2q5lybu9] Science can deal only with observables. Have you ever seen evolution take place? Has anyone else ever ruly seen evolution take place?

Yes. We see it in the emergence of MRSA, VRSA and other drug-resistant micro-organisms. It happens quickly enough to watch because bacteria reproduce quickly, they have a higher frequency of mutations than more complex organisms and the sudden application of antibiotics makes for a very extreme form of selection pressure.[/quote:2q5lybu9]

lol. I figured out how to quote! lol anyways. I had to laugh when I read that. It was funny. You said you watched they watched bacteria reproduce. Reproducing bacteria is a whole lot different than planet earth evolving. No, no one has seen apes evolve to form monkeys. No one was there when God first created the earth. Anyways your post sounds extremely scientific and very far off

 

[Faith Hope Love]

i take the direct path. the lord is all knowing, why would he choose such a clumsy ineffient process!.

Turns out, it's not. Engineers are beginning to realize that evolutionary processes work better than design for very complicated problems. Genetic algorithms are now solving problems that previously couldn't be handled by design.

As usual, God knew best.

Sorry for all the post. I haven't quite figrued out how to have multiple quotes in a post...sigh*

God is God. God knows everything. Don't put God in your little box. It doesn't work. Don't say something different than what God says and say that God did this that way therfore it is best in God's eyes. lol.

Yes, I know your'e going to deny that. Whatever. Deny whatevery you want. That doesn't make it right or wrong. And likewise with me ....Ahem. If I said I wanted to color the picture of the pony pink because it worked better for the overall design would you seriously believe me? Everyone knows pink ponies exsist only in fairy tales If I gave you the mathematical width of the pink crayon and the width/height of the picture and said it fit better with the pink crayon....does that make it possible for pink ponies to exist?

lol sorry. I know completely random example.

 

[Barbarian]

The whole premise of evolution is build upon the assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

Evidence, not assumption. Even most creationists now realize the Earth is very old. Even the ancient Christians knew that the "days" were not literal days, long before science as we know it.

 

[Barbarian]

God is God. God knows everything. Don't put God in your little box. It doesn't work. Don't say something different than what God says and say that God did this that way therfore it is best in God's eyes. lol.

Just going with the evidence. And the discovery that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design is powerful evidence for His creation. Let God be God, and do it His way.

 

[Barbarian]

Ever heard of Jean Baptiste Lamarck?

Every biologist knows about Lamarck. His idea of evolution is no longer accepted, because the evidence shows that acquired traits are not inherited.

Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Michael Rafaday, James Maxwell, and Louis Pasteur were just a few of the many great scientist who believed in divine creation.

So did Darwin; he thought God created life.

Evolution was accepted by people who did so for philosophical reasons; they wanted to remove God fromt the picture.

Odd then, that the men who established the theory were theists. You've been misled about that.

In fact, one of Darwin's first supporters was a liberal Anglican clergyman and socialist, Charles Kingsley,

No. Huxley, Wallace, and many other scientists were the first to accept the theory. You've been misled about that, too.

Most scientist though were very skeptical of Darwin's theory because they realised it was most speculation.

By the time Darwin died, almost all scientists accepted it. The last great biologist who did not, Agassiz, died about 1900. Again, you've been misled on that.

Problems with evolution:
Lack of transitional forms, even if God started it all there is none.

We can test that belief. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional organism. I've yet to find a creationist with enough faith in creationism to do that. Will you be the first?

Even in the newer idea of punctuated equilibrium, there has never been any proof of people seeing this happen.

The first documented speciation was around 1904. Would you like to learn about it?

Also the fossils are remain essentually the same from the first apperance to the last apperance.
David B. Kitts, a zoologist says, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide the..."

I'm afraid they've pulled a fast one on you, again. The cited article is from a review of a booke by Grasse, (the review itself is over 30 years old) in which Kitts is explaining the views of Grasse, who accepts evolution, but not Darwinian evolution. Check it out here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-1.html

Now this really doesn't prove evolution right or wrong, but it makes an extremely good point.

Would you like me to show you a series of the sort Grasse claimed did not exist?