Evolution theory vs God
- Thread starter Guardian1970
- Start date
-
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.
You are conflating two different things. There is plenty of evidence that there is one creation, that man is flesh. Yes, that is true, that is also Biblical. What has been thoroughly debunked is the mechanism, is it random mutations from radiation or is it intelligent design of a creator. The theory that it is due to random mutations has been thoroughly demonstrated to be false mathematically.
The cell includes a mechanism to repair faulty DNA. The vast majority of mutations are destructive. It's not only mathematically but practically impossible. Sneaky evolutionists conflate adaptation with evolution. They see changes in a species and say that is evolution. It is not, of course. It does not matter how many iterations of dogs breeders produce. Whatever they get is still a dog.
There is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, as demonstrated by Stephen Meyer. DNA is a code that describes exactly what a being will be. It determines every physical characteristic.
A code by definition is not random. An explosion in a scrabble factory is not going to produce a play by Shakespeare. And that is the likelihood of DNA occurring randomly in a form that would give rise to living creatures as we know them.
Many Christians are not clear on God forming man from the dust of the ground.
Red clay is not the same thing as dust. Adam is often equated with red clay, but we aren't technically made from clay, which would be silica. We are made from dust which is organic, made of carbon. More importantly if you look at dust under a microscope it is composed of microscopic organisms. Dust is alive.
The Bible is very clear, it is a matter of the faith that we believe in one creation. Not ten million separate creations.
God formed man. The word means to fashion or form or preordain. This is a different word from create which is used three times prior to the use of formed. Genesis is quite clear the verb responsible for the creation is different from the verb responsible for forming man from the dust of the ground. God calling being out of not being is quite different from taking dust from the ground and forming it into a man. It is also quite clear from Genesis 2:1 that the process of creating the heavens and the earth were completed prior to God forming man from the dust of the ground.
What math and DNA have proven is that this process of forming man was not random mutations and could not be random mutations. There was an intelligent design, the single best theory which stands up to the bright spotlight.
Red clay is not the same thing as dust. Adam is often equated with red clay, but we aren't technically made from clay, which would be silica. We are made from dust which is organic, made of carbon. More importantly if you look at dust under a microscope it is composed of microscopic organisms. Dust is alive.
The Bible is very clear, it is a matter of the faith that we believe in one creation. Not ten million separate creations.
God formed man. The word means to fashion or form or preordain. This is a different word from create which is used three times prior to the use of formed. Genesis is quite clear the verb responsible for the creation is different from the verb responsible for forming man from the dust of the ground. God calling being out of not being is quite different from taking dust from the ground and forming it into a man. It is also quite clear from Genesis 2:1 that the process of creating the heavens and the earth were completed prior to God forming man from the dust of the ground.
What math and DNA have proven is that this process of forming man was not random mutations and could not be random mutations. There was an intelligent design, the single best theory which stands up to the bright spotlight.
That's pretty much what happens when a caterpillar morphs into a monarch butterfly. A stem cell holding the info for the whole structure of the butterfly that uses the dissolved soup that was the caterpillar and builds the butterfly from scratch.
I completely agree.
And you can have full assurance that when I join in to mock evolution, it will be entirely "guided" with no "misses."
Only properly "guided" mockery from me.
: )
Dino actually made an important point here... it just sounded funny.
.
While I mostly agree with your analysis of science and theory, I often wonder why so many people have issues with theory only when it comes to evolution and the Big Bang. Many people forget that Gravity is just a theory and then there's Germ theory. I have yet to see anyone begin to deny those theories with arguments like, "they're just theories." This argumentation is asinine to me and doesn't show much other than the ignorance of the one proposing it.
Something else that I've noticed is that the term theory is often misunderstood when it comes to scientific theory. It isn't just a compilation of beliefs people have strung together. Often times, it's through rigorous testing, critical analysis of data, peer review, mathematical equations, and sometimes, contrary to popular beliefs of scientists who adhere to other explanations. The Big Bang, for example, fulfills this almost perfectly. Many Christian's don't even realize that it was a Catholic along with an Astronomer who came up with the theory. Even less people know that the theory was a direct response to Einstein's infamous equation that he put in a cosmological fudge to evaded the implications that the universe was either expanding or contracting. You see Einstein, like most scientists back then, believed blindly that the universe was static and immutable. Anything that challenges that model was no bueno. So what did most do? They mocked the theory. In fact, the term Big Bang was the mockery. I believe the reason was precisely because it actually implied the universe was created and the scientists were not dumb, they seen exactly what those implications were if the universe was expanding.
So as you rightly pointed out, scientific inquiry altered based on newly introduced information and evidence. I don't see this as a negative thing but I do see the slippery slope in believing too heavily in the science, precisely because it does change. Though, the other extreme of not wanting to believe what current scientific evidence points to is just as misguided. I'm sure there is a balance but as a human enterprise, it's susceptible to failures and issues.
I am not anti science or scientists. I am against the idea that there can only be materialistic explanations for everything. "The fool has said in his heart there is not God"
The problems with the theory of evolution are many. Evolutionists admit this. But they refuse to accept anything but a materialistic explanation. The idea that there were incremental changes from a cold blooded reptile to a warm blooded mammal is absurd. I know something about temperature control. Reptiles somehow know to regulate body temperature by moving position. How they came to know that by random mindless processes is a mystery. it's obviously programmed in, otherwise the first cold blooded creature would have died.
Mammals are warm blooded. How could they have made a transition incrementally? It makes no sense. There is irreducible complexity in nature. Nothing "just happens".
The other thing I find fascinating about evolutionists is their inability to accept the conclusions of their belief system. If evolution is true, then I am preprogrammed to reject it because I evolved that way. No one has responded to that statement. They are quite happy to heap scorn on me and condemn me as anti science (which I am not).
Evolutionists begin with a false and unproveable premise. That skews everything they say and all the research that they do. They claim that evolution is theory, not fact. Yet is is presented as fact and woe betide any scientists who dares to disagree with them.
The problems with the theory of evolution are many. Evolutionists admit this. But they refuse to accept anything but a materialistic explanation. The idea that there were incremental changes from a cold blooded reptile to a warm blooded mammal is absurd. I know something about temperature control. Reptiles somehow know to regulate body temperature by moving position. How they came to know that by random mindless processes is a mystery. it's obviously programmed in, otherwise the first cold blooded creature would have died.
Mammals are warm blooded. How could they have made a transition incrementally? It makes no sense. There is irreducible complexity in nature. Nothing "just happens".
The other thing I find fascinating about evolutionists is their inability to accept the conclusions of their belief system. If evolution is true, then I am preprogrammed to reject it because I evolved that way. No one has responded to that statement. They are quite happy to heap scorn on me and condemn me as anti science (which I am not).
Evolutionists begin with a false and unproveable premise. That skews everything they say and all the research that they do. They claim that evolution is theory, not fact. Yet is is presented as fact and woe betide any scientists who dares to disagree with them.
here's the problem as I see it.
Your questions are legit however, We are loosing this war with our approach. Meaning there is a survey that says about 75 to 80% of christian children who grow up in the church (Active kids who do well in church and participate.) leave their faith by their second year of college. this number goes up to 90% by the time they graduated with a 4 years degree.
No war has ever been won with a 90% attrition rate. If you loose 90% of your soldiers every time you go into battle there is no way you can win the war. Because keep in mind for every soldier we loose, Satan gains another one.
Now there is a way That evolution and Creation can work together without changing anything the Bible or science says. but you have to be willing to separate the wildly accepted Catholic Church inspired "interpretation of gen 1-4" from what the Bible actually says., from what it does not say. As what most of us believe about creation isn't actually scripture it's Roman Catholic interpretation.
For example. the Bible never says the world is 6000 years old. Yes the genealogies can be counted back 6000 years. But this does not mean Creation is this old. All this means is it has been 6000 years since the exile from the garden as the genealogies only count back generations of people. Adam and Eve did not have children till after the fall.
So, keep in mind that before the fall/sin they where immortal. Now couple this fact with the fact that there is no time line given between the end of 7th day, and the exile from the garden. Adam and Eve could have been left in that garden for 100s of billions of years. allowing everything outside of the garden to grow or even evolve at it's own pace. As again nothing in scripture says the foul of the air nor beasts of the field or fish that swim or even plants that God put here on Earth on those 6 days of creation are what we see today.
Some of you may ask what of Adam's 930 years on this earth according to gen 4? I would simply ask is God a liar? If the answer is no then Adam's life in the garden came to an end the very day He ate the fruit just like God promised Adam it would in gen 2.. This means the 930 years Adam lived on this earth started on the day he stepped out of the garden. So Adam's 930 year clock did not count the time he spent in the garden because like God said he/Adam died the very day he touched that fruit.
What this theory (No time line between the last day or creation and the exile from the garden) does, is it allows the YEC's to carry-on with the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old, as no time line works both ways. Meaning the earth can be as young as your faith requires it to be. Where as if your faith is challenged on how to reconcile the billions of years science says it needs, then this theory also works. As God's seven day of creation or in a scientific term (Terraformation of this planet) only needed to take 6 days an a day of rest. And because there is no time line given in the Bible the world can be as old or as young as your beliefs require.
We are told in Gen 2 starting at verse 4 that Adam was created after dry land but before plants, as it had not rained on the earth yet. So Adam was created day 3 given or make a living soul and placed in the garden. Then on Day 6 the rest of man kind was made only in God's image Eg. no Spiritual component, no soul like Adam.
Day 6 mankind is evolved man. This also answers all of the paradoxes the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of creation holds to. Where did the people come from that Adam's children married? Who was cain afraid of when He was banished into the land of Nod? Who populated the city Cain built? Cain did not find a wife till after He was banished, who was she and why if a daughter of eve would she have been banished into that region that her brother had to Kill able to be banished into?
All of those problems go away if we simply accept that the creation account of Adam given in gen 2:4 that happens on day 3 is the creation of Adam like your bible literally says, and the creation of the Rest of Mankind happened on day 6 just like your bible literally says.
Your questions are legit however, We are loosing this war with our approach. Meaning there is a survey that says about 75 to 80% of christian children who grow up in the church (Active kids who do well in church and participate.) leave their faith by their second year of college. this number goes up to 90% by the time they graduated with a 4 years degree.
No war has ever been won with a 90% attrition rate. If you loose 90% of your soldiers every time you go into battle there is no way you can win the war. Because keep in mind for every soldier we loose, Satan gains another one.
Now there is a way That evolution and Creation can work together without changing anything the Bible or science says. but you have to be willing to separate the wildly accepted Catholic Church inspired "interpretation of gen 1-4" from what the Bible actually says., from what it does not say. As what most of us believe about creation isn't actually scripture it's Roman Catholic interpretation.
For example. the Bible never says the world is 6000 years old. Yes the genealogies can be counted back 6000 years. But this does not mean Creation is this old. All this means is it has been 6000 years since the exile from the garden as the genealogies only count back generations of people. Adam and Eve did not have children till after the fall.
So, keep in mind that before the fall/sin they where immortal. Now couple this fact with the fact that there is no time line given between the end of 7th day, and the exile from the garden. Adam and Eve could have been left in that garden for 100s of billions of years. allowing everything outside of the garden to grow or even evolve at it's own pace. As again nothing in scripture says the foul of the air nor beasts of the field or fish that swim or even plants that God put here on Earth on those 6 days of creation are what we see today.
Some of you may ask what of Adam's 930 years on this earth according to gen 4? I would simply ask is God a liar? If the answer is no then Adam's life in the garden came to an end the very day He ate the fruit just like God promised Adam it would in gen 2.. This means the 930 years Adam lived on this earth started on the day he stepped out of the garden. So Adam's 930 year clock did not count the time he spent in the garden because like God said he/Adam died the very day he touched that fruit.
What this theory (No time line between the last day or creation and the exile from the garden) does, is it allows the YEC's to carry-on with the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old, as no time line works both ways. Meaning the earth can be as young as your faith requires it to be. Where as if your faith is challenged on how to reconcile the billions of years science says it needs, then this theory also works. As God's seven day of creation or in a scientific term (Terraformation of this planet) only needed to take 6 days an a day of rest. And because there is no time line given in the Bible the world can be as old or as young as your beliefs require.
We are told in Gen 2 starting at verse 4 that Adam was created after dry land but before plants, as it had not rained on the earth yet. So Adam was created day 3 given or make a living soul and placed in the garden. Then on Day 6 the rest of man kind was made only in God's image Eg. no Spiritual component, no soul like Adam.
Day 6 mankind is evolved man. This also answers all of the paradoxes the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of creation holds to. Where did the people come from that Adam's children married? Who was cain afraid of when He was banished into the land of Nod? Who populated the city Cain built? Cain did not find a wife till after He was banished, who was she and why if a daughter of eve would she have been banished into that region that her brother had to Kill able to be banished into?
All of those problems go away if we simply accept that the creation account of Adam given in gen 2:4 that happens on day 3 is the creation of Adam like your bible literally says, and the creation of the Rest of Mankind happened on day 6 just like your bible literally says.
Preach the gospel. People either accept or reject. Around 95% of church attenders are Christian in name only. It's hardly surprising if their kids are not born again either.
Adam did not die physically in Eden. He died spiritually. That means separation from God. The whole human race is born dead in trespass and sin (Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13).
Too many preachers assume that because people come to church they are saved. It's not true. Parents need to establish the truth in the hearts of their children early in their lives. By the time the Satanic education system is done with them, they are full of doubt and unbelief.
Having said that, a good many of those raised with a Christian background receive Christ later in life.
Your interpretation of the creation account makes no sense. If mankind has no spirit then he is not made in God's image. There was no other race of people created after Adam. Evolution is thoroughly debunked. Even worldly scientists cannot agree as to how evolution works. The reason is simple. It doesn't.
Adam did not die physically in Eden. He died spiritually. That means separation from God. The whole human race is born dead in trespass and sin (Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13).
Too many preachers assume that because people come to church they are saved. It's not true. Parents need to establish the truth in the hearts of their children early in their lives. By the time the Satanic education system is done with them, they are full of doubt and unbelief.
Having said that, a good many of those raised with a Christian background receive Christ later in life.
Your interpretation of the creation account makes no sense. If mankind has no spirit then he is not made in God's image. There was no other race of people created after Adam. Evolution is thoroughly debunked. Even worldly scientists cannot agree as to how evolution works. The reason is simple. It doesn't.
It's easy to throw these people and their children away, but the article says the children loosing their faith are those who are highly active in the church. They where born into a christian home and where active through out their lives. But, when they get to college they are made to choose between good grades and science and God/What they grew up believing.. They pick good grades and science because we/christian parents refuse to give them anything other than a 1000 year old Roman Catholic interpretation of genesis.
No matter how you look at whatever Adam was in the garden that could walk and talk with God in the cool of the evenings died. Something ended that day. What I am saying is when He came out of the garden what he was in the garden was over, and what he was outside of the garden was complete different. This different life is what lasted 930 years as again What Adam was in the Garden with God died the day he ate the fruit.
Again, let's say they did establish the truth in their hearts. Now that same kid goes to a 50K a year college and two years in he is told to write a paper on evolution and defend it, and by year 4 buys into the whole secular world view. Because again we have not given them anything to work with other than what you suggest: "Drilling things into their heart,"
Drilling only works in cases of extreme indoctrination. In school children are taught to reason and think. to come to their own conclusions. the Bible is designed this way to, but not through the lens of 1000 year old Roman Catholic view on how God created the world. 1000 years ago catholicism was also based on drilling and indoctrination.
We are loosing 90% of our kids to 'education.' Do you really think, better yet can you provide any documentation that shows we are gaining more souls back, than we loose?
Adam had a soul and He passes the soul down to His children. It is His children that populate the Ark. Meaning Noah a descendant of Adam and His sons are the progenitors of humanity after the flood. The flood kills off all of the "man only man in the image of God."
Gen 2: shows Adam to have been created day 3 after dry land but before plants, because it had not rained yet.
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-36a" title="See footnote a">a</a>] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-37b" title="See footnote b">b</a>] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 2&version=NIV#fen-NIV-38c" title="See footnote c">c</a>] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Then Gen 1:26 on day 6 God created "Man kind.": 26. So God created mankind in his own image
unless you believe in science.. Which is a requirement for those who go to college.
I have no doubt you can find a hand full of people in the various supporting field of evolutionary science to justify your claim. However you are misleading yourself if you do not believe that the vast majority of scientists do not believe in evolution.
Because of this. we must do more to equip our children than send them out into a known environment designed to break down/under mine a faith based belief equipped with little more than a thousand year old interpretation of scripture to defend their beliefs with.
Also remember nothing I said here changes scripture. Infact it embraces and uses More of gen 1 and gen 2 than the old RCC interpretation does.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
Yes, and according to Scripture:
“Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.””
Ecclesiastes 7:29 NKJV
-"You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You."
Nehemiah 9:6 NKJV
Read what I said again. I did not say that scientists generally do not believe in evolution. They do, as a matter of faith. What they don't do is agree on a mechanism. The reason for that is simple: there is none. The more recent idea of genetic mutations does not provide an answer. It does not work.
I don't know why, but I was sceptical of evolution from my childhood. I knew something about God from Sunday School. I knew the creation account. I believed that and rejected evolution, even though it was presented as fact.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
No, Christians who have been taught evolution need to be deprogrammed and become aligned to the word of God instead of the empty philosophy of fallen man. It's called the renewing of the mind. There is a great deal of information that contradicts the theory of evolution. We know vastly more now than in Darwin's day. And that knowledge debunks evolution.
The reason science clings so grimly to evolution is because is removes the need for a non materialistic explanation. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God". Since evolution has been debunked, so called scientists are coming up with theories that fantasy writers would applaud. Facts? Who cares, as long as the "God" word is not mentioned.
The reason science clings so grimly to evolution is because is removes the need for a non materialistic explanation. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God". Since evolution has been debunked, so called scientists are coming up with theories that fantasy writers would applaud. Facts? Who cares, as long as the "God" word is not mentioned.
T
TruthDefender
Guest
Only believe in Him! Science is good as long as it doesn’t elevate itself above what God has given. Believe in Him!!
T
TruthDefender
Guest
You need to choose the Truth….God is Truth! Science has been a benefit, but when they suppress the Truth, you need to choose Truth over lies.