EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE? ARE YOU KIDDING?!

[swat4christ]

Before I begin my brief comment, you might want to open your Bible - I assume that would be okay for professing Christians - and read Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4, Mark 13:19, Hebrews 2:6-7 - but then how many professing “Christians” look to the Scriptures as their FINAL AUTHORITY anymore? Now this is just a tiny sampling of the Scriptures that refute evolution - whether it be Theistic or otherwise.

Let’s start by considering the concept of God. I will try not to be too lengthy, but some things must be stated in order to have this discussion. First, it takes no faith to believe in a Creator, no matter what name you choose to call Him by. It is a simple truth, that in order for there to be a creation, there must of NECESSITY be a creator. If something has design, there must be a Designer. Now, you know that. Faith isn’t required when common sense should do. Even small children understand that Christmas presents don’t just appear under the Christmas tree - SOMEONE had to put them there.

Consider this. Evolutionists teach that we originated from primates. Well, even on the surface there are two outstanding flaws. First of all, the recent study of mitochondrial DNA proves that "Neanderthals" are not our ancestors, but that they were a completely different race altogether. Secondly, primates have 48 chromosomes while humans have only 46. If we really did come from primates on any level, we would have more chromosomes because we are supposedly more "advanced" in the evolutionary chain.

Now, let’s mention something about amino acids. The rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. So if evolution were true, no significant quantity could ever be produced. That seems like a problem for the evolutionists - NO?

Here's another interesting fact. Evolutionists claim that, BY CHANCE, proteins and amino acids were formed. Well, the probability of a protein with only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1 out of 10 to the 65th power. In layman's language, that’s ten with sixty-five zeroes after it, to one. (Some odds. I wouldn’t take those odds in Vegas, would you? But people take them with their everlasting soul. Go figure.) And that's just one protein! Any idea how many proteins are in the human body?

One more thought for now. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. So, then, which evolved first? One can't exist without the other. The truth is, trying to construct any kind of belief system, ideology, science, or religion that doesn’t recognize the Creator God poses a hundredfold more questions than it answers!

And then there are those Polonium Radiohalos which indicate that the earth was formed INSTANTLY. Not familiar with those? Maybe some research and study of these things would be superior to wasting time with Saturday Night Live. What do you think?

But what about that BIBLE? Well, no question, the Bible is the greatest of all books. It is, by far, the most widely read book in the world. And it is not just a book on religion, or theology, or any other such thing. Even though the principles of scripture can be - and are to be - applied in every area of life, the Bible is actually a book of God’s REVELATION of Himself, and how He has worked, and will continue to work, throughout the history of mankind.

Now, understand, TRUE REVELATION is best defined as that process by which God reveals to mankind things which, at the time, mankind would otherwise be unable to discover on his own. Allow me to illustrate. Moses wrote accounts of events that took place “in the beginning” - see Genesis chapter 1. Events occurring centuries before Moses’ birth. Events to which there were no eyewitnesses. Events to which no human discovery could have been possible at that time. Events of which human science then had no knowledge. You’ll find one example of this in Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 where you will notice the statement “after his kind” which is a fact of genetic reproduction not discovered by man’s science until the 16th Century A.D., by Gregor Mendel. The Book of Genesis was written approximately 1500 B.C. That’s 3,100 years! There is only one possible explanation. Only God could have revealed these things to Moses, as God was the only Witness! This is just one example.

The Bible is literally FILLED with this kind of REVELATION for which no human explanation can be made! The Bible is indeed God’s revelation to mankind. The PROOF is clear, abundant and irrefutable. And the very idea that the Bible teaches evolution would be laughable if professing Christians weren’t so gullible - due to their lack of diligent study of the Scriptures. What otherwise should be a JOKE, has the power to decieve and confuse!

Now, I will conclude in my typical style - ONLY A FOOL WOULD TEACH SUCH GARBAGE! Same load of DUNG that has been taught for years by “professing believers” - just a different pile!

 

[Slepsog4]

God said that land animals and mankind were created on the same day. The water creatures and fowl were made merely one day earlier. There is no time for evolution to have occurred. There is no need for it either. God made a mature universe with a mature earth for the sake of man. We are created in His image after His likeness. He gave us dominion over this full functioning planet.

Adam did not evolve into existence, he was created as a full grown man. His apparent age was likely at least 20 years. The vegetation around him had apparent age of years or decades or more, but was merely a few days old. The animals around him were full functional and unevolved.

The Bible supports the account of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 in virtually every form of Literature in both Testaments. The real cap is that Jesus (the very son of God) gave the Creation account historical credence.

To deny the creation week is tantamount to calling God and Jesus liars, not to mention the Holy Spirit and all the other writers.

 

[pogrud]

Let’s start by considering the concept of God. I will try not to be too lengthy, but some things must be stated in order to have this discussion. First, it takes no faith to believe in a Creator, no matter what name you choose to call Him by. It is a simple truth, that in order for there to be a creation, there must of NECESSITY be a creator. If something has design, there must be a Designer. Now, you know that. Faith isn’t required when common sense should do. Even small children understand that Christmas presents don’t just appear under the Christmas tree - SOMEONE had to put them there.

Evolution does not exclude creation. Evolution is a possible path taken by species over time. It does not exclude things being created. It's a bit like (but not the same as) a plant growing from a seed - it changes over time. It does not imply that that neither were created.

Consider this. Evolutionists teach that we originated from primates. Well, even on the surface there are two outstanding flaws. First of all, the recent study of mitochondrial DNA proves that "Neanderthals" are not our ancestors, but that they were a completely different race altogether.

Yes, according to that same study (as published in National Geographic), the modern human (Homo sapiens) and the Neanderthals did not interbreed. They did however share a common ancestor which lived between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago.

Secondly, primates have 48 chromosomes while humans have only 46. If we really did come from primates on any level, we would have more chromosomes because we are supposedly more "advanced" in the evolutionary chain.

The number of chromosomes does not indicate how 'advanced' a species if. Chickens have 78 and some ferns have ~1200. In any case, we didn't lose any chromosomes, our chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the other chromosomes. There is proof demonstrating how genes were conserved around the fusion. About 1 in 1500 humans have a fushion of chromosome 13 and 14 and suffers no symptoms.

Now, let’s mention something about amino acids. The rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. So if evolution were true, no significant quantity could ever be produced. That seems like a problem for the evolutionists - NO?

I think you'll find your wrong on this. There are many experiments with which amino acids have been created using polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), water and UV or electrical discharges.

Here's another interesting fact. Evolutionists claim that, BY CHANCE, proteins and amino acids were formed. Well, the probability of a protein with only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1 out of 10 to the 65th power. In layman's language, that’s ten with sixty-five zeroes after it, to one. (Some odds. I wouldn’t take those odds in Vegas, would you? But people take them with their everlasting soul. Go figure.) And that's just one protein! Any idea how many proteins are in the human body?

The big assumption in those figures is that the formation of the amino acids is completely random, this isn't the case. For example, say your football team has gone unbeaten all season, you're assuming the probability of winning the next game is 50-50. Your other assumption is that there is only one correct combination that could have worked - how do you know that?

One more thought for now. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. So, then, which evolved first? One can't exist without the other. The truth is, trying to construct any kind of belief system, ideology, science, or religion that doesn’t recognize the Creator God poses a hundredfold more questions than it answers!

How original, the same old chicken-egg argument. Things can change over time.

And then there are those Polonium Radiohalos which indicate that the earth was formed INSTANTLY. Not familiar with those? Maybe some research and study of these things would be superior to wasting time with Saturday Night Live. What do you think?

Po-218 is a decay product of Radon which doesn't mean that the earth had to be formed instantly.

 

[eric51]

Before I begin my brief comment, you might want to open your Bible - I assume that would be okay for professing Christians - and read Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4, Mark 13:19, Hebrews 2:6-7 - but then how many professing “Christians” look to the Scriptures as their FINAL AUTHORITY anymore? Now this is just a tiny sampling of the Scriptures that refute evolution - whether it be Theistic or otherwise.

Let’s start by considering the concept of God. I will try not to be too lengthy, but some things must be stated in order to have this discussion. First, it takes no faith to believe in a Creator, no matter what name you choose to call Him by. It is a simple truth, that in order for there to be a creation, there must of NECESSITY be a creator. If something has design, there must be a Designer. Now, you know that. Faith isn’t required when common sense should do. Even small children understand that Christmas presents don’t just appear under the Christmas tree - SOMEONE had to put them there.

Consider this. Evolutionists teach that we originated from primates. Well, even on the surface there are two outstanding flaws. First of all, the recent study of mitochondrial DNA proves that "Neanderthals" are not our ancestors, but that they were a completely different race altogether. Secondly, primates have 48 chromosomes while humans have only 46. If we really did come from primates on any level, we would have more chromosomes because we are supposedly more "advanced" in the evolutionary chain.

Now, let’s mention something about amino acids. The rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. So if evolution were true, no significant quantity could ever be produced. That seems like a problem for the evolutionists - NO?

Here's another interesting fact. Evolutionists claim that, BY CHANCE, proteins and amino acids were formed. Well, the probability of a protein with only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1 out of 10 to the 65th power. In layman's language, that’s ten with sixty-five zeroes after it, to one. (Some odds. I wouldn’t take those odds in Vegas, would you? But people take them with their everlasting soul. Go figure.) And that's just one protein! Any idea how many proteins are in the human body?

One more thought for now. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. So, then, which evolved first? One can't exist without the other. The truth is, trying to construct any kind of belief system, ideology, science, or religion that doesn’t recognize the Creator God poses a hundredfold more questions than it answers!

And then there are those Polonium Radiohalos which indicate that the earth was formed INSTANTLY. Not familiar with those? Maybe some research and study of these things would be superior to wasting time with Saturday Night Live. What do you think?

But what about that BIBLE? Well, no question, the Bible is the greatest of all books. It is, by far, the most widely read book in the world. And it is not just a book on religion, or theology, or any other such thing. Even though the principles of scripture can be - and are to be - applied in every area of life, the Bible is actually a book of God’s REVELATION of Himself, and how He has worked, and will continue to work, throughout the history of mankind.

Now, understand, TRUE REVELATION is best defined as that process by which God reveals to mankind things which, at the time, mankind would otherwise be unable to discover on his own. Allow me to illustrate. Moses wrote accounts of events that took place “in the beginning” - see Genesis chapter 1. Events occurring centuries before Moses’ birth. Events to which there were no eyewitnesses. Events to which no human discovery could have been possible at that time. Events of which human science then had no knowledge. You’ll find one example of this in Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 where you will notice the statement “after his kind” which is a fact of genetic reproduction not discovered by man’s science until the 16th Century A.D., by Gregor Mendel. The Book of Genesis was written approximately 1500 B.C. That’s 3,100 years! There is only one possible explanation. Only God could have revealed these things to Moses, as God was the only Witness! This is just one example.

The Bible is literally FILLED with this kind of REVELATION for which no human explanation can be made! The Bible is indeed God’s revelation to mankind. The PROOF is clear, abundant and irrefutable. And the very idea that the Bible teaches evolution would be laughable if professing Christians weren’t so gullible - due to their lack of diligent study of the Scriptures. What otherwise should be a JOKE, has the power to decieve and confuse!

Now, I will conclude in my typical style - ONLY A FOOL WOULD TEACH SUCH GARBAGE! Same load of DUNG that has been taught for years by “professing believers” - just a different pile!

Bible doesn't teach evolution because evolution is a topic for paleontology, not faith. Bible is a book of faith: not a science book. Misusing the bible is worse than not using it at all.

It would be inappropriate for the American Physics Association to pronounce that Jesus never existed.They have no evidence with which to make such an assertion. Just as it is inappropriate for some self-professed christian to claim there is not compelling evidence for evolution, and then proceed to quote some passages from the bible.

And BTW, Neanderthals were not primates; they were humans, not homo sapiens, but still human.

In Christ

 

[Slepsog4]

The Theory of Evolution cannot be squared with the Bible.

The Theory asserts MACRO-evolution = change from one species into another species. The Bible and genetics holds that KIND produces after its KIND. A dog is a dog is a dog. Same with cats, cows, and caterpillars.

The idea MICRO-evolution is legitimate = change within a species. This is why we have variety in the human race... skin color, eye color, hair color, etc...

There are many types of dogs... but can be crossbred. Same with cats, cows, etc.

There is no evidence of micro-evolution giving rise to macro-evolution.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

God said that land animals and mankind were created on the same day. The water creatures and fowl were made merely one day earlier. There is no time for evolution to have occurred. There is no need for it either. God made a mature universe with a mature earth for the sake of man. We are created in His image after His likeness. He gave us dominion over this full functioning planet.

Adam did not evolve into existence, he was created as a full grown man. His apparent age was likely at least 20 years. The vegetation around him had apparent age of years or decades or more, but was merely a few days old. The animals around him were full functional and unevolved.

The Bible supports the account of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 in virtually every form of Literature in both Testaments. The real cap is that Jesus (the very son of God) gave the Creation account historical credence.

To deny the creation week is tantamount to calling God and Jesus liars, not to mention the Holy Spirit and all the other writers.

Greetings,

You are absolutely correct, the only conceivable way that Adam could have been created, is instantaneously as a fully developed mature human, and this would be the same for any lifeform, in the unique case of human creation all 75 trillion cells of the human body must have come together perfectly at one moment in time, the blood circulating through the veins and all brain functions operating. The idea that any type of independent living multi-cellular organism can be built up "over time" "by blind chance" is simply absurd and logistically impossible. 'Evolution' is not science it is fantasy and a very crude and primitive way of thinking, species dont change their body or habit over time, even if hybridation occurs species , all variants and hybrids will over time eventually revert to type, apply to this the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and over time less order and energy is the result, an increase of order and energy which is the doctrine of the evolutionists is an impossiblility and not within the laws of physics and science, evolution is fantasy. Variations in species arise and that is observable, but they are impermanent, crosses with original types quickly erase them, a new varient form no matter how useful it is cannot establish itself, it would inevitably revert to type, that an absolute, any speculation to the contrary is mere fancy. We could add that no accidental effects could produce the neccessary harmony and integral structure. Partly developed organs are useless, totally ineffective before completion, this excludes the possibility for natural selection creating new types.

 

[RoboOp]

In every society and generation, people are brainwashed by that society (and it's so-called "science"). This is why many professing Christians today believe both feminism and evolution, and reject or explain away all scripture that is contrary to those things.

 

[pogrud]

And BTW, Neanderthals were not primates; they were humans, not homo sapiens, but still human.

Not quite Eric. True, Neaderthals were not primates. But as I mentioned above, there is some recent evidence that indicates that Neanderthals only shared a common ancestor to modern humans (Homo Sapiens). So they are not quite human either.

The Theory asserts MACRO-evolution = change from one species into another species. The Bible and genetics holds that KIND produces after its KIND. A dog is a dog is a dog. Same with cats, cows, and caterpillars.

The idea MICRO-evolution is legitimate = change within a species. This is why we have variety in the human race... skin color, eye color, hair color, etc...

I assume your not a biologist. There really isn't much difference between Macro and Micro evolution, it's an artifical distinction put up by biologists. It's exactly the same processes at work in both. It's a bit like saying you believe in molecules but not in atoms, electrons, protons or neutrons. I can provide an example if you want?

Cup Of Ruin, it looks like you've totally ignored my previous post in which I refuted all your claims. If you have counter evidence I'd be glad to hear.

The idea that any type of independent living multi-cellular organism can be built up "over time" "by blind chance" is simply absurd and logistically impossible.

And your evidence that it's absurd and impossible is? Please read my previous post before responding.

'Evolution' is not science it is fantasy and a very crude and primitive way of thinking

Why is it not a science? I'd agree it's not a religious idea, it is a science though. It follows all de rigueur for being a science and is widely agreed in any respected peer-reviewed publications.

...apply to this the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and over time less order and energy is the result, an increase of order and energy which is the doctrine of the evolutionists is an impossiblility and not within the laws of physics and science, evolution is fantasy.

How many times will creationists use the second law argument. There are many reasons why that law isn't relevant. Firstly, it only applies to closed-systems, a single living organism is not a closed system. Your life and death demonstrates the second law is not relevant - you grow from a single cell egg - this is an increase in complexity. Secondly, you're assuming complexity is the opposite of entropy which it isn't - look up Chaos Theory for example!

Partly developed organs are useless, totally ineffective before completion, this excludes the possibility for natural selection creating new types.

The old side-by-side development argument. Here is a quick example of why we didn't need to be 'created' completely as we are. Note - I'm not saying that this is exactly how it did happen. Some organisms are of a significant size that they need a 'plumbing system' but not necessarily a heart - for example, coral - they have a system of tunnels with hairs to make water containing oxygen and nutrients flow - no heart though. It's then possible that that 'blood' could 'evolve' in similar simple systems to transport rather than water. As systems grow in complexity, maybe a heart could evolve (remember other animals have very different hearts to our own). Then, possibly as the level of toxins we produce becomes a problem, a liver evolves. You get the idea. There are plenty of creatures at various stages - fish with lungs are a good example.

In every society and generation, people are brainwashed by that society (and it's so-called "science"). This is why many professing Christians today believe both feminism and evolution, and reject or explain away all scripture that is contrary to those things.

It get irritated by hypocritical people who blame science but still enjoy all the benefits of it. If you want to blame science, don't bother using the computer, mobile phone, microwave, TV. Forget about seeking the latest medication or medical care. Either believe science has something to offer and respect the system of science or just live like the Amish. Evolution doesn't destroy creation. The majority of Christians outside of America do not believe the creation story literally. RoboOp, if you don't believe in evolution I'd love to hear your reasoning for it.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

It get irritated by hypocritical people who blame science but still enjoy all the benefits of it. If you want to blame science, don't bother using the computer, mobile phone, microwave, TV. Forget about seeking the latest medication or medical care. Either believe science has something to offer and respect the system of science or just live like the Amish. Evolution doesn't destroy creation. The majority of Christians outside of America do not believe the creation story literally. RoboOp, if you don't believe in evolution I'd love to hear your reasoning for it.

True scientific knowledge has been established by God, to say that evolution is a false theory has nothing to do with not appreciating and desiring scientific or tecnological progress, as I said previously it was Christian Europe where the sciences were able to develop themselves to their current levels, evolution is not science itself, it is a theory that can be traced back thousands of years, avery crude and primitive concept that is illogical and unscientific. Evolutionary preists spread a doctrine from a intellectual platform that was founded and built by Christians, this is a standard usurpers act. For example Evolution theorists simply stole the Linnean system of classification and claimed it as their own, Linneaus designed a Creationist system of classification, his theology was in fact quite poor and immature but he was forgiven because of his skills as a classifier, he certainly did not intend for atheist evolutionary types to hijack his work.

But just reading through your comments again it is clear that you are typical in your secular way of thinking or rather non-thinking, just the standard old lot of crude and immature platitudes and generalizations totally unsubstanciated of course.

Evolution is unproven, the universe is a closed system unless your puny mind would like to enlighten us Christian luddites about what lays beyond the bounds of our universe that would make it an open universe. A Creationist God will not allow His Creation to be accounted for by "blind chance", if this is your god, then so be it, you are free to worship your god, you can call your god, "blind chance", that is what Christians would call idolatry, you have constructed a false god in your own mind and installed your idol in the true Creator's justified position, that's just idolatry, that's all, it's very common.

 

[pogrud]

True scientific knowledge has been established by God, to say that evolution is a false theory has nothing to do with not appreciating and desiring scientific or tecnological progress, as I said previously it was Christian Europe where the sciences were able to develop themselves to their current levels...

Yes, if God created the universe, science is about understanding his creation. Is this a sin? I assume by your continued claims that science was developed primarily by Christian Europe that you're refuting my claims of any significant influence of the Ancient Greeks, Moors, Ancient Chinese, Jews and Islam?

...evolution is not science itself, it is a theory that can be traced back thousands of years, avery crude and primitive concept that is illogical and unscientific.

And your proof for this is? It's irrelevant where it came from, by todays standards Evolution stands up to any scientific rigor, that's why the majority within the scientific community believe it to be true. If you have any further contradictory scientific evidence (as in your first post which I've comprehensively refuted), please share it with us.

For example Evolution theorists simply stole the Linnean system of classification and claimed it as their own, Linneaus designed a Creationist system of classification, his theology was in fact quite poor and immature but he was forgiven because of his skills as a classifier, he certainly did not intend for atheist evolutionary types to hijack his work.

Yes, Linnaean taxonomy is the basis to how we categorise species. As you continually mention (and I agree), many Christians (mainly wealthy men) studied science as a HOBBY to understand God's creation. You can't have it both ways - he was either a great Christian Scientist or he was just a Christian playing with stuff he didn't know. The system we use today, although based on his system has be significantly changed and improved.

But just reading through your comments again it is clear that you are typical in your secular way of thinking or rather non-thinking, just the standard old lot of crude and immature platitudes and generalizations totally unsubstanciated of course.

I don't want to get into personal attacks. I've tried to clear up your arguments against evolution with our current understanding of science. Can you pin-point what I've said is crude, immature or generalised?

Evolution is unproven, the universe is a closed system unless your puny mind would like to enlighten us Christian luddites about what lays beyond the bounds of our universe that would make it an open universe.

Yes, the UNIVERSE is a closed system. I said a SINGLE ORGANISM is not though. You can apply the second law to the UNIVERSE but not to a SINGLE ORGANISM. You were the one who brought up the second law though.

A Creationist God will not allow His Creation to be accounted for by "blind chance", if this is your god, then so be it...

Where does the 'blind chance' come from? I've always argued that if God created us, it's quite within his ability to have pre-mapped out any changes we undergo. I didn't make any mention of 'blind chance'.

 

[eric51]

Not quite Eric. True, Neaderthals were not primates. But as I mentioned above, there is some recent evidence that indicates that Neanderthals only shared a common ancestor to modern humans (Homo Sapiens). So they are not quite human either.
.

Neanderthals are considered homo sapiens whereas we, are considered homo homo sapiens. But you are correct that the Neanderthals only shared a common ancestor to us. I said nothing earlier to contradict that. It is irrelevant to the question of Neandethals being of a different species. To be technicial, they were homo sapiens where as we are homo homo sapiens.

 

[pogrud]

Neanderthals are considered homo sapiens whereas we, are considered homo homo sapiens. But you are correct that the Neanderthals only shared a common ancestor to us. I said nothing earlier to contradict that. It is irrelevant to the question of Neandethals being of a different species. To be technicial, they were homo sapiens where as we are homo homo sapiens.

Sorry Eric, I don't mean to be argumentative for the sake for it, but since we're trying to be thorough I feel I should clear it up. The Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis) and modern humans (Homo Sapiens) are both from the same Homo genus. Our current scientific knowledge, indicates that there were other species of the Homo genus, all except Homo Sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. If were being really pedantic we should use Homo Sapiens Sapiens to distinguish between us and Homo Sapiens Idaltu. Neanderthals were never and are not Homo Sapiens.

 

[swat4christ]

Bible doesn't teach evolution because evolution is a topic for paleontology, not faith. Bible is a book of faith: not a science book. Misusing the bible is worse than not using it at all.

It would be inappropriate for the American Physics Association to pronounce that Jesus never existed.They have no evidence with which to make such an assertion. Just as it is inappropriate for some self-professed christian to claim there is not compelling evidence for evolution, and then proceed to quote some passages from the bible.

And BTW, Neanderthals were not primates; they were humans, not homo sapiens, but still human.

In Christ

No surprise here. It doesn’t take long for anyone paying attention to know that whatever your remarks, they will be anti-scripture. The truth is - the Bible is the ONLY perfectly accurate scientific textbook ever written! The Lord speaks to SCIENCE more than He does HEAVEN. And even though countless volumes of irrefutable documentation have been provided over the centuries to PROVE this FACT - you obviously are blinded to this truth - as well as to many others. See 1Corinthians 2:14 and 2Corinthians 4:3-4 for more insight into your problem. But then, no matter how much truth is given someone like you - you refuse to hear. Jesus spoke to this in John 10:25-26. For additional Scriptural enlightenment on these matters you may want to look at 1Timothy 6:20, 2Timothy 3:7-8, 2Timothy 4:3-4. But since the Word of God is not your AUTHORITY, giving you Scripture is like pouring water into a sieve - hoping something will stick. It was for you ERIC - and your ilk ERIC - that Matthew 7:6 was written. Therefore I will now graciously bow out and invest my time elsewhere. But in conclusion, remember, it was for folks like YOU that this was written - Same load of DUNG that has been taught for years by “apostate hypocrites” - just a different pile! AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN!

 

[leendert]

Its quite simple,either evolution is truth and the bible a lie or vice versa.The two cannot coexist.If evolution is true then God must be a liar,i think not.

 

[awings7]

Greetings,

You are absolutely correct, the only conceivable way that Adam could have been created, is instantaneously as a fully developed mature human, and this would be the same for any lifeform, in the unique case of human creation all 75 trillion cells of the human body must have come together perfectly at one moment in time, the blood circulating through the veins and all brain functions operating. The idea that any type of independent living multi-cellular organism can be built up "over time" "by blind chance" is simply absurd and logistically impossible. 'Evolution' is not science it is fantasy and a very crude and primitive way of thinking, species dont change their body or habit over time, even if hybridation occurs species , all variants and hybrids will over time eventually revert to type, apply to this the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and over time less order and energy is the result, an increase of order and energy which is the doctrine of the evolutionists is an impossiblility and not within the laws of physics and science, evolution is fantasy. Variations in species arise and that is observable, but they are impermanent, crosses with original types quickly erase them, a new varient form no matter how useful it is cannot establish itself, it would inevitably revert to type, that an absolute, any speculation to the contrary is mere fancy. We could add that no accidental effects could produce the neccessary harmony and integral structure. Partly developed organs are useless, totally ineffective before completion, this excludes the possibility for natural selection creating new types.

It is a fact nonbelivers cannot stand any truth about God and how He created things.
Many make up alot of munbo jumbo to explain away how we got here.
The writters of the Bible did not write about science perse, they did record the accurences of the
natrual world around them and attribute the workings of it to YH

Evolutionists have been proven wrong time and again whle nothing has to be changed about the
way God created the univerce or man.


God doesnt do anything by accident.

 

[eric51]

but then how many professing “Christians” look to the Scriptures as their FINAL AUTHORITY anymore? Now this is just a tiny sampling of the Scriptures that refute evolution - whether it be Theistic or otherwise.



Consider this. Evolutionists teach that we originated from primates. Well, even on the surface there are two outstanding flaws. First of all, the recent study of mitochondrial DNA . That seems like a problem for the evolutionists - NO?

Here's another interesting fact. Evolutionists claim that, BY CHANCE, proteins and amino acids were formed. Well, the probability of a protein with only 50 amino acids forming by chance would be 1 out of 10 to the 65th power. In layman's language, that’s ten with sixty-five zeroes after it, to one. (Some odds. I wouldn’t take those odds in Vegas, would you? But people take them with their everlasting soul. Go figure.) And that's just one protein! Any idea how many proteins are in the human body?

One more thought for now. DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. So, then, which evolved first? One can't exist without the other. The truth is, trying to construct any kind of belief system, ideology, science, or religion that doesn’t recognize the Creator God poses a hundredfold more questions than it answers!

And then there are those Polonium Radiohalos which indicate that the earth was formed INSTANTLY. Not familiar with those?
Now, understand, TRUE REVELATION is best defined as that process by which God reveals to mankind things which, at the time, mankind would otherwise be unable to discover on his own. Allow me to illustrate. Moses wrote accounts of events that took place “in the beginning” - see Genesis chapter 1. Events occurring centuries before Moses’ birth. Events to which there were no eyewitnesses. Events to which no human discovery could have been possible at that time. Events of which human science then had no knowledge. You’ll find one example of this in Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 where you will notice the statement “after his kind” which is a fact of genetic reproduction not discovered by man’s science until the 16th Century A.D., by Gregor Mendel. The Book of Genesis was written approximately 1500 B.C. That’s 3,100 years! There is only one possible explanation. Only God could have revealed these things to Moses, as God was the only Witness! This is just one example.

The Bible is literally FILLED with this kind of REVELATION for which no human explanation can be made! The Bible is indeed God’s revelation to mankind. The PROOF is clear, abundant and irrefutable. And the very idea that the Bible teaches evolution would be laughable if professing Christians weren’t so gullible - due to their lack of diligent study of the Scriptures. What otherwise should be a JOKE, has the power to decieve and confuse!

Now, I will conclude in my typical style - ONLY A FOOL WOULD TEACH SUCH GARBAGE! Same load of DUNG that has been taught for years by “professing believers” - just a different pile!

Not wise to speculate about advanced biological and cosmological matters that only a specialist would be competent to intelligently comment upon. The bible is not a final authority on such matters. Leave the bible for faith, and leave science to scientists. Evolution and Christianity has no quarrel. So, why start one?

Fairly compelling evidence exists that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand to one hundred thousand years old.

For a christian these are the basic parameters of acceptable belief:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. A christian must confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing.

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time. However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Our Christian faiths admits the possibility that our physical bodies developed from a preexisting form but our faith compels us to hold that our souls are immediately created by God.

In Christ

 

[pogrud]

As a scientist, I can agree that all this is in keeping with the current understanding of science:

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. A christian must confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing.

Time is tightly linked to space, it cannot exist outside of it. Science believes the universe came from a singularity (a tiny point). It does not explain how this was created - it could have been created by a God or could be infinitley expanding and collapsing.

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time. However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Again, in terms of science - time is relative. The term 'day' is meaningless, or at least very different, without the structure of the solar system as we know it. Following on from above, if God did create the singularity, there is no reason it he didn't plan for it develop as it did.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

As before, there is no reason why his creations could not develop as he planned. The argument creationists often use is the difference between macro and micro evolution. From a biologist's perspective there is no difference in the processes - it's just handy for comparing different scales.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Our Christian faiths admits the possibility that our physical bodies developed from a preexisting form but our faith compels us to hold that our souls are immediately created by God.

Much as before. Science cannot substantiate what a 'soul' is. It does however indicate we have developed over time, most likely as a result of evolution.

Swat4christ, leendert, awings7, or anyone else. You've all indicated that evolution is wrong, has been proved wrong and is in contradiction to the bible. Please can you come up with specific examples of how it has been proved wrong or where the contradictions lie. I believe I've cleared up the common misunderstandings as posted in my first two replies to this tread. Many Christians have no problem believing in both. Evolution doesn't make (the possible) creation any weaker - even more impressive if anything.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Evilution is not in the bible.

 

[pogrud]

Evilution is not in the bible.

OK, but neither is something like gravity or the ability of man to fly (in a plane). It doesn't make gravity or flying any less true.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Many Christians have no problem believing in both. Evolution doesn't make (the possible) creation any weaker - even more impressive if anything.

What is 'evolution theory'?

It is the gradual process by which the diversity and complexity we see in the universe arose from more primitive and simple forms, this process has according to evolutionary doctrine been slowly developing over approx 3000 million years or more, in several thousand years of recorded human history it was generally believed that life was created instantly and divinely in its fixed form, each species and life form recieving it's own Genesis and creation fom a higher intelligent being or beings (If we take the Bible to be true then Monotheism is the first religion and polytheism is the apostate later corruption) it was only in the last 200 - 300 years that altenative version arose, a version which had had a minority following for well over 2500 years, this version was 'evolution', it was not a new idea, but it really recieved an amazing and fervent rise in interest and popularity, to the point where 'evolution theory' has come to be the dominant version of history and the basis for all scientific endevour at least in the Western Industrialised World.

It would really take a flight of fancy for a real true believer and I am quite sure there is not 2 billion true Christians in the world today, it would take an amazing flight of fancy for me or any other Christian to not only take 'evolution' as truth, which it is not, it's an physical and scientific impossibillity, so cannot be taken as truth... but it is even more unlikely that anyone could expect that a Christian knowing evolution to be a total anti-christian lie that has crept up through the grates of the pit of hell itself, and combine it, reconcile it and add it to the holy Word of God! Well, that Sir, I simply condemn. Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist, it's gravely important, more so then ever in history that the distinction be made very clear.