Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Unearthed

Active member
May 18, 2021
195
63
28
Whatever. Perhaps you are more interested in made-up stories than truth. I have better ways to spend my time.
I just wish you could see that you've trapped yourself by your own thinking processes.

On one hand, you demand evidence whenever your interpretation of scripture is challenged, and yet on the other you don't accept evidence when it demonstrates something that conflicts with your world-view.

Then to top it off, when somebody makes a point or asks a question that seeks to highlight this, you side-step the question and reply with a spiteful message.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,203
10,086
113
I just wish you could see that you've trapped yourself by your own thinking processes.

On one hand, you demand evidence whenever your interpretation of scripture is challenged, and yet on the other you don't accept evidence when it demonstrates something that conflicts with your world-view.

Then to top it off, when somebody makes a point or asks a question that seeks to highlight this, you side-step the question and reply with a spiteful message.
You have no idea what spite is. As for the rest of your diatribe, it’s yawn-inducing.
 
Jun 15, 2021
90
3
8
1 day = 1000 years therefore creation takes 6000 years
Day 1: let there be light. Adam was the light.
Day 2: water. The flood killed all of Adam's descendants.
Day 3: dry land. The Mosaic law.
Day 4: sun and moon. Jesus and disciples.
Day 5: sea creatures. The church age.
Day 6: land animals and man in God's image. The second coming of Christ.
Sabbath = millennial reign.
Jesus is coming soon!
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
340
103
43
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/ is a start. He's done a whole series on origin of life. There are dozens of youtube presentations. I'm not a scientist but I'm not stupid either. The claim that only a scientist can understand OOL and/or evolution is part of the arrogant myth that evolutionist cling to.

You might like to look at this site also. David R Pogge. aka Do-While Jones, produces a web site with a wealth of information and links to resources:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml
There are wide arrays of articles that you've pointed to, but I can't find any in those links that are relevant to and critical of evolution guided by God. Is there an article in question that makes a compelling argument in favour of young earth creationism?

From Job 36:22 on it is talking about what God did. As in created. It continues with the animal kingdom in 39 & 40. You need to see that the questions to Job are rhetorical. God knows the answers because He created them. He states this specifically in 40: 15 onward. God made behemoth along with Job.

The language is poetic, but the actual statements are clear enough. If you want to know more, look up Dr Hugh Ross, "A Matter of Days". He's "old earth/young human race (as I am). He literally wrote the book and explains it better than I can.
I don't see anything in those sections of Job that necessarily speaks in favour of young earth creationism either. Is there a specific passage that you feel makes this is the case?
 
Jun 15, 2021
90
3
8
When the above started, humanity already existed. God took a liking to them and decided to "make them in His image".
The fall was an essential part of His plan, it somehow meant that Eve became the mother of all.
Any questions? I expect there may be a few, I have some myself so I can't promise anything except to do my best.
I want to be challenged.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,203
10,086
113
1 day = 1000 years therefore creation takes 6000 years
Day 1: let there be light. Adam was the light.
Day 2: water. The flood killed all of Adam's descendants.
Day 3: dry land. The Mosaic law.
Day 4: sun and moon. Jesus and disciples.
Day 5: sea creatures. The church age.
Day 6: land animals and man in God's image. The second coming of Christ.
Sabbath = millennial reign.
Jesus is coming soon!
Your premise is on very shaky ground. One day is as a thousand years, or a watch in the night. Well, which is it? Is it 24 hours, or three hours, or four hours?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,203
10,086
113
I just wish you could see that you've trapped yourself by your own thinking processes.

On one hand, you demand evidence whenever your interpretation of scripture is challenged, and yet on the other you don't accept evidence when it demonstrates something that conflicts with your world-view.

Then to top it off, when somebody makes a point or asks a question that seeks to highlight this, you side-step the question and reply with a spiteful message.
I request evidence when someone makes a claim. I don't accept fantasies as evidence. When someone directly questions me on something relevant, I respond. When someone wants to deal with side issues, I reserve the right to ignore it.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,001
603
113
London
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:

If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.

Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
But there is evidence, hard evidence. It is just a few feet beneath us. All man's existence is there from stone age through to bronze and iron age to the present time. Hard evidence in the form of all human remains. It can be dated to less than 10, 000 years of man's existence on earth. All the tools he has developed, his weaponry, it's all there.

Evolutionists just choose to ignore it.

They have bored MILES down into the earth desperately seeking to find evidence that goes beyond the stone age but they can find none, they spend trillions of tax dollars.

They behave like the detective who finds a body in a room with a dagger in it's back and immediately rules out murder. Now he has to develop some fantastic theory as to how the body got there with a dagger in it's back, by ruling out murder the possibilities are endless and fantastic.

There is also soft evidence.

In the 17th century there were just 5 million people living in Great Britain, in 1066 at the time of the conquest there were less than 1 million. This is the same in every other nation. Today there are nearly 80 million living in Britain. So by a process of reverse multiplication it is plain to see that mankind has descended from just 2 people and spread out all over the world from one central place ... they say Africa, I believe the Middle East.

These are hard facts.
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
678
443
63
There are wide arrays of articles that you've pointed to, but I can't find any in those links that are relevant to and critical of evolution guided by God. Is there an article in question that makes a compelling argument in favour of young earth creationism?



I don't see anything in those sections of Job that necessarily speaks in favour of young earth creationism either. Is there a specific passage that you feel makes this is the case?
I'm not young earth creationist. I'm old earth, pre-Adamic creation.

God states categorically that he created things "after their kind". That precludes evolution. There are horses from tiny to massive, but they are still horses. God, as far as I can tell, placed the genetic code for every variation of the horse into the initial horse. So we see variation within a "kind" but that is NOT evolution.

I believe that the earth was completely flooded as God's judgement when Lucifer was cast down to the earth and became Satan. So Noah's universal flood was not the first. If that is so, then it explains the fossil record. It is just as acceptable to translate "was" formless, "became" formless. The Hebrew word "was" is the same word used to describe Lot's wife when she was turned into a pillar of salt. Plainly she did not start out that way. "Was" is used because it fits the conventional view. The old earth/young present creation concept has been around since about AD200 at least.

If God guided evolution, why does He not say so? He states categorically that He created man and Behemoth. And everything else. Creation is God's word in nature. He speaks to a deaf world using "sign language". Before I was saved, I saw the stars on a black night. I was miles from anywhere and there was little background light. I said to myself, "There must be a God". No one had told me that the heavens declare God's glory.
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
678
443
63
I'm not young earth creationist. I'm old earth, pre-Adamic creation.

God states categorically that he created things "after their kind". That precludes evolution. There are horses from tiny to massive, but they are still horses. God, as far as I can tell, placed the genetic code for every variation of the horse into the initial horse. So we see variation within a "kind" but that is NOT evolution.

I believe that the earth was completely flooded as God's judgement when Lucifer was cast down to the earth and became Satan. So Noah's universal flood was not the first. If that is so, then it explains the fossil record. It is just as acceptable to translate "was" formless, "became" formless. The Hebrew word "was" is the same word used to describe Lot's wife when she was turned into a pillar of salt. Plainly she did not start out that way. "Was" is used because it fits the conventional view. The old earth/young present creation concept has been around since about AD200 at least.

If God guided evolution, why does He not say so? He states categorically that He created man and Behemoth. And everything else. Creation is God's word in nature. He speaks to a deaf world using "sign language". Before I was saved, I saw the stars on a black night. I was miles from anywhere and there was little background light. I said to myself, "There must be a God". No one had told me that the heavens declare God's glory.
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
340
103
43
I'm not young earth creationist. I'm old earth, pre-Adamic creation.
Do you believe the creation took longer than seven 24 hour periods? How do you define "day" in the creation story?

God states categorically that he created things "after their kind". That precludes evolution.
The method of creation is not defined. The term "creation" does not preclude evolution. Are there steps that lead up to these kinds?

God states categorically that he created things "after their kind". That precludes evolution. There are horses from tiny to massive, but they are still horses. God, as far as I can tell, placed the genetic code for every variation of the horse into the initial horse. So we see variation within a "kind" but that is NOT evolution.
We run into the dilemma of how to define kinds. Are tigers and lions different kinds? What is a liger or tigon in that case? A new kind? Evolution theory basically states that from a "kind" can eventually specialise into "sub-kinds" that can't interbreed with each other (without medical intervention). If sub-kinds can form, how can we be so sure that the current "kinds" we see aren't also "sub-kinds" of common ancestral kinds? What are the fundamental kinds that all life comes from?

When Noah took two of each kind on the ark, were giants counted as their own kind as a type of beast that creepeth the earth? Or did giants (such as King Og) descent from Noah's family? Where did the giants come from after the flood? Either this is an example of sub-kinds forming, or there were two giants on Noah's ark (which in itself is fascinating if that were the case).

It is just as acceptable to translate "was" formless, "became" formless. The Hebrew word "was" is the same word used to describe Lot's wife when she was turned into a pillar of salt. Plainly she did not start out that way. "Was" is used because it fits the conventional view.
Are we talking about Genesis or Jeremiah?

If God guided evolution, why does He not say so? He states categorically that He created man and Behemoth. And everything else.
Evolution can be a method of creation. In Genesis 1, God could have snapped everything into existence in an instant, but instead there is a pattern, form, and method that is described. When I make bread, the yeast is doing the job I intended for it. The recipe that I set in motion becomes the desired product. A similar consideration is present for how God might create things: put the ingredients into position and reap at the predetermined time (and adjust or intervene at His leisure). There is nothing to say that evolution was not the creation method. From dust (and whatever microscopic life was present in that dust), to a form, to the breath of the Spirit, Adam was brought to life.

Consider the passage you selected from Job:

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." - Job 40:15 KJV

This passage says that Job was created.

"After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth." - Job 3:1

This passage says that Job was born.

Job was born, but he was also created. The natural birth was the method of creation. God didn't say to Job "I made your kind", He said to Job "I made you". And what a beautiful message that is. The loving will of God works through the natural world to create, right down to person by person.

Evolution guided by God is internally consistent with scripture, it only requires a figurative interpretation of Genesis. The book of Job support the idea of naturalistic methods being used by God as a tool for creation.
 

TMS

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2015
1,740
290
83
The wisdom of man is foolishness.
God created DNA, chromosomes and all the other things necessary to life, by His word. We can understand life today after 6000 years so we need to come to a place where we admit that God is able the do the uncomprehendable. We can still seek understanding but never forget that God is the almighty. We have a habit of trying to be god and we always end up with mud on our face.

If God said He made the world and everything in it in a literal week i am going to trust Him, and believe Him.
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
340
103
43
The wisdom of man is foolishness.
God created DNA, chromosomes and all the other things necessary to life, by His word. We can understand life today after 6000 years so we need to come to a place where we admit that God is able the do the uncomprehendable. We can still seek understanding but never forget that God is the almighty. We have a habit of trying to be god and we always end up with mud on our face.

If God said He made the world and everything in it in a literal week i am going to trust Him, and believe Him.
The perspective that Genesis 1 is speaking of literal days is internally consistent. The perspective that Genesis 1 is speaking of figurative days is also internally consistent. You are relying on the wisdom of man to choose one over the other.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
5,815
941
113

PC123

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2020
1,180
662
113
Australia
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:

If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.

Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
The theory of evolution has the exact same problem... It also starts off with two humans

There is no evidence that we evolved from apes... The so called missing links are fraudulent...
 

Unearthed

Active member
May 18, 2021
195
63
28
The theory of evolution has the exact same problem... It also starts off with two humans

There is no evidence that we evolved from apes... The so called missing links are fraudulent...
Just to be clear, the theory of evolution does not state that life on Earth started with two humans.

As regards the missing links, what do you mean?