[_ Old Earth _] rejecting evolution is NOT a requirement to be a Christian

[disciple_of_truth]

Rick, John, you have both made really good points. However, there is still a way for hypothetical evolutionary fact to co-exist with Biblical fact. Perhaps Adam was the first fully formed man on the evolutionary chain. Adam was 100 percent human; his “father†could have been only 98 or 99 percent. This could explain why the Bible refers to Adam as “the first manâ€Â. Since Adam’s ancestors were not technically “human†(because they were still evolving INTO human-hood), they could be the “dust of the groundâ€Â, metaphorically speaking, from which Adam was formed. Since his earthly “father†was technically not human (almost, but not quite), then Adam had no human father.

So it IS still possible for evolution to be fact,

One of the basic components of evolution is "survival of the fittest". This of course requires death. Death did not happen until after sin entered the world. Sin did not enter the world until after Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That did not happen until after she and Adam were created. So, you cannot have death happening before sin enters the world, therefore you cannot have evolution as a mechanism for the existence of Adam.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Rick, John, you have both made really good points. However, there is still a way for hypothetical evolutionary fact to co-exist with Biblical fact. Perhaps Adam was the first fully formed man on the evolutionary chain. Adam was 100 percent human; his “father†could have been only 98 or 99 percent. This could explain why the Bible refers to Adam as “the first manâ€Â. Since Adam’s ancestors were not technically “human†(because they were still evolving INTO human-hood), they could be the “dust of the groundâ€Â, metaphorically speaking, from which Adam was formed. Since his earthly “father†was technically not human (almost, but not quite), then Adam had no human father.

So it IS still possible for evolution to be fact,

One of the basic components of evolution is "survival of the fittest". This of course requires death. Death did not happen until after sin entered the world. Sin did not enter the world until after Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That did not happen until after she and Adam were created. So, you cannot have death happening before sin enters the world, therefore you cannot have evolution as a mechanism for the existence of Adam.

Great Post. For anyone who holds the bible as true, this should be a resounding thought provoking idea. If there was no death before sin entered the world, and the Bible claims it entered the world through Adam and Eve, then how can we have evolution of an old earth. If you start ignoring some of scripture, you better be careful of how far the slop goes.

 

[Free]

You must be kidding? The Bible is so meant to be used as a timeline.

I don't think he is and I don't think you are correct. The Bible neither reveals the time of the end nor the beginning. I think that most serious scholarship shows that there is no way to arrive at and age for the earth from Scripture.

A true Christian will trust what scripture says over anything that science has to offer. And, when it comes to "carbon dating", I wouldn't trust anything that Wikipedia says let alone any science text book.

Why not? How can you so simply dismiss science? I'm quite certain you would be in disagreement with an atheist if they so simply dismissed the Bible. If you want to dismiss something scientific, be prepared to do it scientifically and show precisely why it is flawed. Otherwise, you really should avoid making such statements.

Is it so far fetched to believe that God created all of this in six literal days (thus rejecting evolution altogether) that we have to allow an old warn-out, sceptic scientist (Darwin) to invent an idea that takes God right out of the picture just so we can reason it all in our finite human minds?

As I stated previously, evolution does not at all mean that God is then taken out of the picture. Evolution is a mechanism; God is the maker of mechanisms. To say that evolution does away with God is to put God and evolution on equal terms, which is obviously false.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

disciple_of_truth wrote:
You must be kidding? The Bible is so meant to be used as a timeline.

Free wrote:
I don't think he is and I don't think you are correct. The Bible neither reveals the time of the end nor the beginning. I think that most serious scholarship shows that there is no way to arrive at and age for the earth from Scripture.

I never said that the Bible reveals the time of the end. Do Not Put Words Into My Mouth!
I also never said the Bible reveals the time of the beginning. All I said was that the Bible is so meant to be used as a timeline. However, allow me to demonstrate by simply allowing scripture to reveal the time of the beginning.

Creation of the Universe to the creation of Adam = 6 days --Genesis 1:1 - 1:31
Time from Adam to the time of the flood = 1656 years --Genesis 5:1-7:1
Time of the Flood to the time of Abraham = 225 years --Genesis 11:10-32
Time from Abraham --> remainder of the Old Testament books = approx 1500 years
At the end of the Old Testament we have 400 years of silence.
From the end of the 400 years of silence up to now we have say 2009 years (give or take a year).
All totaling roughly 5,790 years and 6 days.

It's not that hard to sort through the chronologies of the men who's life span's God has revealed to us in scripture and arrive at an approximate age of the earth that is conducive to a young earth and a 6 "literal' day creation. There is a reason God gave us these chronologies. You say that "most serious scholarship shows that there is no way to arrive at and age for the earth from Scripture." What scripture are you reading from? The scriptures that I read from include NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV and even sometimes the KJV. All of these translations do reveal the age of the earth as laid out above and as long as one applies themselves to seeking the truth with all their heart they too can arrive at the same conclusion (give or take a year or two).

This is what happens when we begin with the idea in our heads that evolution is real. We begin by trying to squeeze it in somewhere into the verses in Genesis 1. Then, we have to skew and twist the rest of scripture in order to make evolution fit in there where we put it. We start failing to see the literality of scripture and thus begin to question all of it and in the end rolling over and conceding that whatever the Bible says is all relative.

No, he really must be kidding and yes, you really can know from scripture when the beginning was.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

disciple_of_truth wrote:
A true Christian will trust what scripture says over anything that science has to offer. And, when it comes to "carbon dating", I wouldn't trust anything that Wikipedia says let alone any science text book.

Free wrote:
Why not? How can you so simply dismiss science? I'm quite certain you would be in disagreement with an atheist if they so simply dismissed the Bible. If you want to dismiss something scientific, be prepared to do it scientifically and show precisely why it is flawed. Otherwise, you really should avoid making such statements.

OK, first off let me be absolutely clear what I mean here. If there is any scientific idea, theory, concept or thought that does not correspond to scripture, then one should always trust what scripture says over what science says. There is much of science that does correspond with what scripture teaches and there is also plenty of science that does not have any connections to scripture. But, anytime there is a conflict between science and the Bible, one should always trust the Bible over science.

Now, again, I never said that I dismiss science. You really need to listen (or pay attention when you read). I am a science teacher myself. I've taught all middle school and high school sciences from grades six on up through grade 12. I don't dismiss science. On the contrary, I believe that God gave us science so that we could better understand how His Creation works. Likewise, He gave us His Word so that we could know Him and understand our relationship with Him. The problem is that satan has used deceptive science to lead many astray. True science will always support the Biblical Worldview. Pseudo-science (evolution) does not correspond to the Bible and therefore must not be taken seriously. Any science that is in conflict with scripture should be questioned rigorously and considered heresy.

Deception closely parallels truth. Satan loves to use things that look and seem trustworthy in order to deceive us. He, being a liar and the father of all lies, wants us to think something is real and true and trustworthy. Evolution is one of those things. He wants us to think there is no harm in it. He wants us to think it is in harmony with scripture. He doesn't like it when we question evolution. Let's face it. We live in a fallen world of which the whole world lies in the lap of satan. It's not always easy and clear for us to see and know truth. When coupled with the fact that satan rules this world, our perception of truth becomes even more blurred.

Evolution is flawed simply because it is false science. There is no true science or scientific research ever done that supports the claim(s) that evolution makes. Adaptation? Yes. Evolution? No. There are no real transitional fossils, no observable processes, no honest genetic studies and no support from the Bible to even suggest that God has ever used evolution as a tool. The fact that the Bible does not address evolution in any way should be enough for any Christian to question it. Setting the above reasons aside, evolution is flawed simply because of two reasons.

1. There is no support from scripture for it. As profound and popular as it is, one might reasonable expect there to be some sort of support for it in scripture if it were true.
2. Scripture denies it. Genesis 1 clearly states that each kind of plant and each kind of animal gives rise to their own kinds. Not to new species.

Evolution is not true science. If you think it is, you are being deceived. If you tamper with the very beginning of God's Word, where exactly does the tampering stop?

2 Corinthians 11:3 - But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

disciple_of_truth wrote:
Is it so far fetched to believe that God created all of this in six literal days (thus rejecting evolution altogether) that we have to allow an old warn-out, sceptic scientist (Darwin) to invent an idea that takes God right out of the picture just so we can reason it all in our finite human minds?

Free wrote:
As I stated previously, evolution does not at all mean that God is then taken out of the picture. Evolution is a mechanism; God is the maker of mechanisms.

Satan wants you to think that. This is my whole point. Today evolutionist everywhere are saying this. "Evolution doesn't take God out of the picture". Of course it does. That is it's only intention. It was invented by satan to do away with God. Do not be deceived. Evolution was originally developed as an idea that would address the question of how life got started on earth. Since then, it has been unable to produce evidence and solid scientific studies so, now it simply says that it doesn't account for the origin of life just the diversity of life. But, it tried to account for the origin of life. Evolution was originally supposed to explain the origin of life, not just some mechanisms by which diversity happened. Evolution's only purpose was to do away with God the Just Judge. If not, then how is it that nearly 100% of all atheists believe in evolution?

To say that evolution does away with God is to put God and evolution on equal terms, which is obviously false.

No, it doesn't put the two on equal terms. It puts evolution above God. And, thus my point. Evolution was designed, developed, implemented and taught for the sole purpose of taking God out of the picture. Why? Because man loves his sin more than he loves God. Man can't stand the thought of being held accountable to a just and Holy God. Man is selfish, sinful and prideful. We want to be controlled by no one and answer to no one. Evolution gets us one step closer to that. First we tried to flat out replace God with evolution. Now that we discovered that doesn't work we are trying to insert evolution into Genesis. The problem is, it just isn't working out there either but, satan will still use this to deceive many.

One last time. I want to be perfectly clear. Evolution is false science. It is potentially damning. It is a lie of satan. It does not nor has it ever occurred. It is used by satan to deceive many. It's original intention was and still is to do away with God. It is believed by nearly all atheists. And, it is not needed by scripture to prove any point in the Bible. Call it what you will, but no matter what you call it I do believe that one must reject evolution simply because scripture rejects it.

Maybe the rejection of evolution is not a requirement to be a Christian in your book. But, what is it exactly do you think that is required? If you tamper with the first book of the Bible (Genesis) then when or where does the tampering stop?

 

[Free]

Satan wants you to think that. This is my whole point.

And my point is that philosophically, your argument breaks down.

No, it doesn't put the two on equal terms. It puts evolution above God.

Yes, it does put the two on equal terms. It brings God down to the level of evolution.

What you are doing is making Henry Ford equal with an engine.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

And my point is that philosophically, your argument breaks down.

How's that? I'm not speaking philosophically. I'm speaking from the very truth of God's Word. How exactly does it break down?

Yes, it does put the two on equal terms. It brings God down to the level of evolution.

Anytime a man made idea such as evolution is used to explain something that God has already explained to us, that man made idea is raised above God. We don't like how God explained creation so we invent evolution to replace it. God's explanation isn't good enough for us. We want something better. Thus, evolution is elevated above God.

What you are doing is making Henry Ford equal with an engine.

Well, not me. But it would be more like the engine gets elevated above Henry Ford, not equal to.

 

[Free]

How's that? I'm not speaking philosophically. I'm speaking from the very truth of God's Word. How exactly does it break down?

Yes, you are also speaking philosophically. Your logic is what is in error. When an argument lacks logic, when either the premises are shown to be false or the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, an argument is said to break down.

My point is that you are equating to different classes of things in drawing a comparison to make your argument. One of your premises is wrong which is why your conclusion is wrong.

Anytime a man made idea such as evolution is used to explain something that God has already explained to us, that man made idea is raised above God. We don't like how God explained creation so we invent evolution to replace it. God's explanation isn't good enough for us. We want something better. Thus, evolution is elevated above God.

No. Firstly, the Bible says that God created, it does not say how. It is not even close to fully explained in the Bible. The act of creating is stated, how God created is not given. Secondly, evolution hasn't replaced God, it can't. Evolutionists would like you to think so but they are wrong.

Well, not me. But it would be more like the engine gets elevated above Henry Ford, not equal to.

Yes you. Again, you are equating a mechanism with an agent that designed the mechanism. You cannot say that a mechanism replaces one who designs mechanisms. A mechanism is always below the one designed it.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Free wrote:
Yes, you are also speaking philosophically. Your logic is what is in error. When an argument lacks logic, when either the premises are shown to be false or the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, an argument is said to break down.

You said, "evolution does not at all mean that God is then taken out of the picture. Evolution is a mechanism;"

What I said in response to that was:
"Satan wants you to think that. This is my whole point. Today evolutionist everywhere are saying this. "Evolution doesn't take God out of the picture". Of course it does. That is it's only intention. It was invented by satan to do away with God. Do not be deceived. Evolution was originally developed as an idea that would address the question of how life got started on earth. Since then, it has been unable to produce evidence and solid scientific studies so, now it simply says that it doesn't account for the origin of life just the diversity of life. But, it tried to account for the origin of life. Evolution was originally supposed to explain the origin of life, not just some mechanisms by which diversity happened. Evolution's only purpose was to do away with God the Just Judge. If not, then how is it that nearly 100% of all atheists believe in evolution?"

Now then, what specifically about my logic is in error? Or, what premises are shown to be false or how does my conclusion not follow the premises? Can you explain just what exactly you mean here? Please.

No. Firstly, the Bible says that God created, it does not say how. It is not even close to fully explained in the Bible. The act of creating is stated, how God created is not given.

Yes it does and yes it is. In Genesis 1:3 - Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. Light was created by God speaking. God "said" and there was. God spoke it into existence. And the same is true for the waters to be gathered and dry land appear in verse 9. And again in verse 11 "Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, {and} fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so." God spoke, and it was so. The same with verses 14 and 15 regarding lights in the heavens. God "said" and it was so. To put it simply, when God spoke either stuff appeared or things happened. Because of these verses we have every reason to believe that God spoke even the heavens and the earth into existence. Nowhere in scripture is evolution supported. I can read in scripture where God "said" and "it was so" but I have not found anywhere where scripture teaches us about an evolution mechanism that was used by God to create life and/or facilitate the establishment of the diversity of life we see. Scripture simply does not support evolution. Besides, evolution no longer addresses the origin of life anyway.

Secondly, evolution hasn't replaced God, it can't. Evolutionists would like you to think so but they are wrong.

I agree that evolution has not and can not replace God. I agree with you 100% on this. But, I don't think that evolutionists want us to think that evolution has replaced God. All you have to do is browse around in these forums awhile to see this. There are plenty of evolutionists here who seem to believe in God and even in a creation.

Evolution does not address the origin of life. It used to try but, it fell short. So, now evolutionists realize that to make such a claim would be social and professional suicide. Today many evolutionists stick to the claim that evolution accounts for the diversity of life but, not the origin of life. So, evolution has "devolved" from attempting to address the origin of life to trying to address the diversity of life. However, I do not blame the ones who believe in evolution. Satan is the liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). He is the one who wants us to be deceived. But even satan knows when he's been beet and has to concede that evolution cannot account for the origin of life. So now, he has fathered the lie that evolution accounts for the diversity of life or even the "origin of species" in the sense that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Because so many scientists buy into this lie and continue to spread it, he is able to deceive many of those who simply don't have it in them to seek the truth. Human nature is to believe what the professionals tell us.

Yes you. Again, you are equating a mechanism with an agent that designed the mechanism. You cannot say that a mechanism replaces one who designs mechanisms. A mechanism is always below the one designed it.

No, not me. No way am I putting evolution above God. You misunderstand me. I believe in the literal account of creation in Genesis. In no way do I believe in evolution. Adaptation in species occurs but so-called "macro-evolution" does not occur. That being said, I truly believe that those who believe in evolution are in a sense saying that God's written record of what He did and how He did it isn't good enough for them. Those who try to inject evolution somewhere between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 have made it clear that God's Word alone isn't good enough. Rather than trusting the context of the surrounding scripture to add understanding they trust in a man made idea (evolution) to take the place of God's own account of how things came into existence. Thus, man's idea of evolution has taken the place of God's Word. They do just what Romans 1:25 says as they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,. By the way, Where in scripture does it tell us about God using this "mechanism" of evolution to do anything. Again, satan is a liar and the father of lies. You either believe God's Word or you don't. It's that simple.

 

[JMM]

[quote="disciple_of_truth":2yo1suob]

Rick, John, you have both made really good points. However, there is still a way for hypothetical evolutionary fact to co-exist with Biblical fact. Perhaps Adam was the first fully formed man on the evolutionary chain. Adam was 100 percent human; his “father†could have been only 98 or 99 percent. This could explain why the Bible refers to Adam as “the first manâ€Â. Since Adam’s ancestors were not technically “human†(because they were still evolving INTO human-hood), they could be the “dust of the groundâ€Â, metaphorically speaking, from which Adam was formed. Since his earthly “father†was technically not human (almost, but not quite), then Adam had no human father.

So it IS still possible for evolution to be fact,

One of the basic components of evolution is "survival of the fittest". This of course requires death. Death did not happen until after sin entered the world. Sin did not enter the world until after Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That did not happen until after she and Adam were created. So, you cannot have death happening before sin enters the world, therefore you cannot have evolution as a mechanism for the existence of Adam.

Great Post. For anyone who holds the bible as true, this should be a resounding thought provoking idea. If there was no death before sin entered the world, and the Bible claims it entered the world through Adam and Eve, then how can we have evolution of an old earth. If you start ignoring some of scripture, you better be careful of how far the slop goes.[/quote:2yo1suob]

SPIRITUAL death, my friends! But physical death is a completely different thing altogether, and could have still happened before sin entered the world. Unless there is some scripture which clarifies WHICH type of death we are speaking of, that I may have overlooked.....

 

[disciple_of_truth]

disciple_of_truth wrote:
One of the basic components of evolution is "survival of the fittest". This of course requires death. Death did not happen until after sin entered the world. Sin did not enter the world until after Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That did not happen until after she and Adam were created. So, you cannot have death happening before sin enters the world, therefore you cannot have evolution as a mechanism for the existence of Adam.

JMM responded with:
SPIRITUAL death, my friends! But physical death is a completely different thing altogether, and could have still happened before sin entered the world. Unless there is some scripture which clarifies WHICH type of death we are speaking of, that I may have overlooked.....

The passages of scripture that we are dealing with is:
Genesis 2:17 - "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

The word "die" in Hebrew is "muwth", (mooth) {Strong's # 4191} means "to die, kill". Essentially "to lose one's life". The word is used of physical "death" with reference to both man and beast.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The word "death" in Greek is "thanatos" (than'-at-os) {Strong's # 2288} has the basic meaning of separation of the soul from the body, the latter (the body) ceasing to function and returning to dust.

At the moment that Adam ate from the tree he disobeyed God casing sin to enter the world and thus causing death to enter the world through sin. There was no sin prior to that moment therefore there was no death prior to that moment. Neither spiritual nor physical. God told Adam that if he ate from the tree he would surly die. That included both spiritual death immediately and physical death later.

 

[JMM]

Genesis 2:17 - "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

The word "die" in Hebrew is "muwth", (mooth) {Strong's # 4191} means "to die, kill". Essentially "to lose one's life". The word is used of physical "death" with reference to both man and beast.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The word "death" in Greek is "thanatos" (than'-at-os) {Strong's # 2288} has the basic meaning of separation of the soul from the body, the latter (the body) ceasing to function and returning to dust.

Nicely done, disciple_of_truth! And I see that you've been reading your Strong's. Okay, so the Hebrew word "muwth" was used to describe the death that entered the world through Adam. I'll go ahead and concede that we are speaking of physical AND spiritual death here, because "muwth" AND "thanatos" are used in the above-mentioned scriptures. So "muwth" can be used to describe either physical death of man, or death of beast, or both. My speculation is that perhaps "muwth" was specifically used to describe the death of MAN in Genesis 2:17, and that this did not include the beasts, who had already been dying physically throughout the long evolutionary process. After all, Genesis 2:17 does NOT say "...in the day that you eat from it you AND all the beasts will surely die", so including the beasts in this statement from God to Adam seems to be pure speculation, IMO. Romans 5:12 does not mention beasts either.

So here's what I think happened (disclaimer: since I wasn't actually there at the time, I can only speculate): God created everything, then set the evolutionary process in motion. The beasts that were formed by this process physically lived and died, and continued this throughout their evolutionary history. This "muwth" includes Adam's ancestors, who were not 100% human, as has been discussed earlier in this thread. Then Adam came along, as the first complete 100% human being. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and their disobedience introduced sin into the world, bringing physical and spiritual death to all HUMANS (consistent with Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12). Now all humans AND animals die physically (and humans can die spiritually as well, unless one accepts the gift of salvation through Jesus).

 

[disciple_of_truth]

JMM wrote:
My speculation is that perhaps "muwth" was specifically used to describe the death of MAN in Genesis 2:17, and that this did not include the beasts, who had already been dying physically throughout the long evolutionary process.

If this was a "long evolutionary process" then how long? Are we talking millions of years, or just thousands of years? Remember, Adam was created on the sixth day along with the beast of the earth. Adam only lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5) So, if God set the "evolutionary process" in motion at the end of the sixth day or even on the seventh day, then by the time Adam died, only 930 years worth of evolution had taken place. Now we don't know how old Adam was when He sinned but, we do know that he was younger than 130 because by that age He had his son Seth (Genesis 5:3). And sometime before Seth he had Cain and Able (Genesis 4:1-2). Safe to say that when Adam sinned he was less than 130 years old. That's not much time for any "long evolutionary process" to have taken place.

The Bible does not speak of any "evolutionary" process. In fact the Bible clearly states that God created living creatures and plants "after their kind". Meaning that dogs give rise to dogs, birds give rise to birds, whales give rise to whales and pine trees give rise to pine trees. This is stated in His Word several times in Genesis 1.

After all, Genesis 2:17 does NOT say "...in the day that you eat from it you AND all the beasts will surely die", so including the beasts in this statement from God to Adam seems to be pure speculation, IMO.

Since none of scripture mentions any "evolutionary" processes would it also be your opinion then that "evolution" also seems to be pure speculation?

Romans 5:12 does not mention beasts either.

The point in this verse is that first, sin entered the world and second, death entered the world through sin. The fact that death spread to all men because all sinned is a separate but equally important point. One thing we learn from this passage is that death entered the world through sin. Because of man's sin, all of creation is under the "curse" or, has become "fallen" or, is in a "fallen" state.

God created everything, then set the evolutionary process in motion.

This would be more believable if you had a Bible verse to support it.

The beasts that were formed by this process physically lived and died, and continued this throughout their evolutionary history.

Remember, this seems to have been a rather short history. As indicated above it had to be less than 130 years.

This "muwth" includes Adam's ancestors, who were not 100% human, as has been discussed earlier in this thread.

Adam didn't have any ancestors. He was form from dust of the ground. (Genesis 2:7)

Then Adam came along, as the first complete 100% human being.

I thought you said that "God created everything, then set the evolutionary process in motion". If so, then Adam would not be the product of evolution since he was part of the creation on day six.

I understand where your coming from but, when such speculations are made we should be able to back these claims up with properly interpreted scripture. There are a lot of folks in the world who try to make God's Word say something that it does not. The way I see it, God said what He said, and He meant what He said. We either believe Him, or not.

 

[JMM]

If this was a "long evolutionary process" then how long? Are we talking millions of years, or just thousands of years? Remember, Adam was created on the sixth day along with the beast of the earth.....Safe to say that when Adam sinned he was less than 130 years old. That's not much time for any "long evolutionary process" to have taken place.

How long you ask? Radiometric dating has estimated the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old, and LIFE is estimated to have begun 4 or 5 million years ago. You mention the specific creation account.....there are two accounts, actually. In the account from Genesis 2:4-25, the order of events is quite different from the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account. I could go into the details of the differences between the two creation accounts, but I really don't think that it matters. These creation accounts are clearly metaphorical, written in hymnic, poetic, and symbolic language (like their counterparts in Revelation). The two accounts are like two parables, describing different things. The main point that God is revealing in these accounts is that He created everything.

The Bible does not speak of any "evolutionary" process. In fact the Bible clearly states that God created living creatures and plants "after their kind". Meaning that dogs give rise to dogs, birds give rise to birds, whales give rise to whales and pine trees give rise to pine trees. This is stated in His Word several times in Genesis 1.

And as I said, Genesis 1 was written in hymnic, poetic, and symbolic language. You're right that dogs, birds, whales, and pine trees give rise to their own kind. Evolutionists would agree, as they do not claim that dogs give rise to cats. However, viruses do mutate, and people do evolve over time to adapt to the climates of their geographical locations (Africans are darker than Europeans, Alaskans have thicker blood than Jamaicans, etc.).

Since none of scripture mentions any "evolutionary" processes would it also be your opinion then that "evolution" also seems to be pure speculation?

Evolution is a scientific theory; if you wish to refer to it as "pure speculation", be my guest. Anyone who claims that evolution is FACT is dishonest, because we don't know that yet. My only point in starting this thread, however, was to make the case that evolution and God do NOT have to be seen as mutally exclusive.

Adam didn't have any ancestors. He was form from dust of the ground. (Genesis 2:7)

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Adam's not-quite-human ancestors could very well have been the "dust of the ground" to which Genesis 2:7 refers. Again, my above descriptions of the language that was used in the creation accounts apply here.

I understand where your coming from but, when such speculations are made we should be able to back these claims up with properly interpreted scripture. There are a lot of folks in the world who try to make God's Word say something that it does not. The way I see it, God said what He said, and He meant what He said. We either believe Him, or not.

Yes, God meant what He said. He created everything. We either believe Him, or we don't. The way I see it, the best way to look at the early chapters of Genesis is that the author was explaining in language and concepts that made sense to him the divine revelation that he was receiving. To attempt to fit the creation hymn of Genesis 1 into a modern scientific framework is a fruitless endeavor. It should not be taken literally, but it should be understood as the author’s response, based on culturally-determined language of observation and put into poetic form, to the inspiration he received from his encounter with God. The abiding truths that we take from it are that God exists and that He is responsible for the existence of the universe, including us. To insist on a literal interpretation of those passages, leading to a belief in a 6000 year-old universe, is simply missing the point. The point, IMHO, is that God created everything. If He used evolution to form everything into what it is today, then so be it. It doesn't have to be seen as inconsistent with anything the Bible says, or in conflict with the hymnic, poetic, symbolic creation stories.

from earlier in the thread:

...This is my whole point. Today evolutionist everywhere are saying this. "Evolution doesn't take God out of the picture". Of course it does. That is it's only intention. It was invented by satan to do away with God. Do not be deceived.

Yes, Satan is a great deceiver; you're right about that. And we are to be ever aware of his ongoing efforts to trick us in various ways.....but let's not let that vigilance be taken too far, to the point of irrational paranoia. Now, while I can't speak for others, I can personally promise you that I am NOT a wolf in sheep's clothing, starting this thread in an attempt to trick you on behalf of Satan.

You claim that evolution was invented by Satan for the sole purpose of doing away with God.....I believe that in this thread I have spelled out, in great detail, why it was NOT.

 

[Barbarian]

Since no one can show that the death God spoke of in Genesis is anything but spiritual death, there isn't much point in that argument.

It seems it's just an interpretation some, but not most, Christians made for themselves.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Since no one can show that the death God spoke of in Genesis is anything but spiritual death, there isn't much point in that argument.

It seems it's just an interpretation some, but not most, Christians made for themselves.

What are you kidding me? Did you even bother to read the posts above?

 

[Barbarian]

What are you kidding me? Did you even bother to read the posts above?

Yes. As you see, the arguments are all reworkings of Genesis to make it somehow consistent with the idea that physical death was brought into the world by Adam.

But that's not what God says. He told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree. But Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter.

So we know the death wasn't physical. Moreover, Christ died to save us from death. If it was to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die physically. It was to save us from that other, more final death that He came to die for us.

Adding anything more to it, is setting ourselves above His Word.

 

[B.A.C.]

Rejecting Evolutionary Theory or Evolution? Read my thread about Evolution supposedly being fact AND theory. I think this is how you're using the word. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Evolution in terms of adaptation to the environment is a fact. Though I prefer to call it adaptation.

Evolutionary Theory that uses the "Common Ancestor" as it's very foundation is a direct contradiction of Christian beliefs, not to mention the "Common Ancestor" is neither falsifiable or verifiable and observable which is what Science would require of ANY other theory. The two are not compatible if you believe the Word of God.

As far as Genesis having two distinct creation stories, post what you think is different about them. I'd like to challenge/reprove your belief in this.

God Bless.

B.A.C.

 

[JMM]

Welcome to the forum, B.A.C.

Rejecting Evolutionary Theory or Evolution? Read my thread about Evolution supposedly being fact AND theory. I think this is how you're using the word. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course it's "Evolutionary Theory", not "Fact". My purpose here is not to debate whether it is fact, theory, or whether both is possible (I know it's not).....my purpose here is to make the case that one's identity as a Christian is NOT contingent upon rejection of evolution (the thread title really says it all ).

Evolutionary Theory that uses the "Common Ancestor" as it's very foundation is a direct contradiction of Christian beliefs, not to mention the "Common Ancestor" is neither falsifiable or verifiable and observable which is what Science would require of ANY other theory. The two are not compatible if you believe the Word of God.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that God made Adam from the "dust of the ground", and postulated that this could be symbolic of Adam's not-quite-human ancestors. I now submit to you my opinion that this "dust of the ground" could also refer symbolically to our alleged common ancestor with the apes. Considering that chimps share about 96 percent of our DNA, and considering (as I said before) that the creation stories are written symbolically and poetically (more like hymns than actual accounts), I don't see how this would present a problem.

As far as Genesis having two distinct creation stories, post what you think is different about them. I'd like to challenge/reprove your belief in this.

I'd love to debate with you about the similarities and differences of the creation stories, and how best to interpret them. One of us can start a new thread devoted specifically to this, and we can have at it. I'm out of time today, however, and will have to take this up tomorrow. I'll start the thread tomorrow if you haven't by then. See you tomorrow!