Evolution and Hebrews 11:3

[Dino246]

This is the TRICK they play on people in the indoctrin.. i mean uhh. education.. yeah education institutions. They switch adaptation to micro-evolution and try to jump from that to macro-evolution.

They say: "Oh looky there, a bird adapted to its environment over long period of time, thats evolution right there. So it only makes sense that in a longer period of time that bird can switch to a completely different species even though we got no observable way to see this, and got zero evidence of this ever occuring, but evolution aint no religion tho, because look at this bird here, now its a slightly different looking bird."

Thats a prime example of science FALSELY so called. Its ridicilous and its just a way to escape GOD thats why it was invented. If you take a look at Charles Darwin's life you see he was supposed to be a preacher at one point, but because of family tragedy the man got BITTER and ANGRY at God and went out of his way to come up with his dumb theory.

Actually, the idea of evolution is much older than Darwin... by several millenia. Darwin is rightly credited with the theory of natural selection though, not that such makes him any more credible.

 

[crossnote]

Actually, the idea of evolution is much older than Darwin... by several millenia.

True...

For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(Rom 1:21-23)

 

[dcontroversal]

I also find it interesting that the BIRDS came from the sea.......!!

Was just reading this in Genesis the other night, and no matter how many times had read it in the past, it did not register in my mind until then. It is interesting!!

Amen....the word "and" as well as what was created on that particular day is clear.....it is amazing how many truths we read over for years without grasping what it is actually saying!

 

[49]

Amen....the word "and" as well as what was created on that particular day is clear.....it is amazing how many truths we read over for years without grasping what it is actually saying!

Yes sir! In just the last several months, it's as if God has opened my eyes and understanding when reading His Word. Not saying everything is understood and needs no further input/guidance; just that it is clearer, and find myself taking longer to read. Sometimes will read a verse or passage 10 times or so, and at least 2 or 3 times otherwise.

 

[EleventhHour]

i don't see anything in Romans 5 that would indicate that. but in Genesis 3 there is the cursing of the ground, and Satan cursed 'more than all cattle and more than every beast of the field' -- can surmise that the ground was not cursed before that, but what the LORD says to Satan here is amazing and extraordinarily difficult to understand; what do cattle & creatures of the fields have to do with any of what's recorded there? were they cursed beforehand? why? why doesn't the scripture mention anything about that? or are they cursed in conjunction with what is recorded here? is that all part of 'cursed is the ground for your sake' ?
it connects back to Romans 8; all creation was subject to futility, to 'the bondage of decay' not of its own will, and groans in earnest expectation for the adoption of the children of God. this passage seems to me to indicate Romans 5 isn't talking about 'only the death of animals, not men' -- as well as does the fact that, despite the interpretive choices having been made in our English translations, Genesis 1-2 calls creatures "living souls" exactly as it calls man a "living soul" -- it's the same phrase in Hebrew, but men decided to translate nephesh as 'creature' when He describes His creation of non-human living beings, and only 'soul' when He describes Adam. anthropocentric bias, anyone?

i'd have to hear the argument. i don't see it just from what i know/remember about the text -- tho it could, and i suspect it is, not an argument made from scripture at all, but an argument made from another logic and then shoehorned into interpretation of the text. that's not necessarily bad in and of itself - the Bible leaves details out of accounts all the time, and i think we are meant to think about these things and attempt to infer details as we meditate on what the things which are written for us mean about the things that are not written. but to wonder about the 'missing information' in the accounts in the Book is certainly an opportunity to get a lot of things very much wrong.

I found this statement by him at ICR, although it dates back to 1991.

Now when you talk about animals eating one another, we tend to think of that as bad. But what does it tell us in Romans 5:12 - what Adam introduced was not death generally, but death through sin. The only animals that can experience death through sin are sinners, human beings. We're the only ones that the Bible labels as sinners, the animals are not part of that. The other animals, as Ecclesiastes points out, when they die, they go to dust....

Source

So he is basically arguing that there was death before the fall for animals and that this was not bad because it was not from sin.

It would seem that micro evolution is dependent death and so to hold to that process of creation, death would have had to preceded the fall?

 

[crossnote]

The only animals that can experience death through sin are sinners, human beings. We're the only ones that the Bible labels as sinners, the animals are not part of that. The other animals, as Ecclesiastes points out, when they die, they go to dust....

Not really...


in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:20-22)

So he is basically arguing that there was death before the fall for animals and that this was not bad because it was not from sin.

It would seem that micro evolution is dependent death and so to hold to that process of creation, death would have had to preceded the fall?

No, as we see even the creation was subject to death, not of its own accord but due to Adam's sin.

 

[posthuman]

I found this statement by him at ICR, although it dates back to 1991.

Now when you talk about animals eating one another, we tend to think of that as bad. But what does it tell us in Romans 5:12 - what Adam introduced was not death generally, but death through sin. The only animals that can experience death through sin are sinners, human beings. We're the only ones that the Bible labels as sinners, the animals are not part of that. The other animals, as Ecclesiastes points out, when they die, they go to dust....

Source

So he is basically arguing that there was death before the fall for animals and that this was not bad because it was not from sin.

It would seem that micro evolution is dependent death and so to hold to that process of creation, death would have had to preceded the fall?

the dust returns to the ground it came from,​

and the spirit returns to God who gave it.​

(Ecclesiastes 12:7)​

​

this is speaking of both man and beast, no differentiation. in fact, back in chapter 3 -

I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? ​

(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) ​

​

it is unequivocally stated that there is no difference - both man and creature are dust and return to it. verse 21 is often abused; it isn't a statement of 'fact' that animals spirits go down in contrast with that of men goes up - it is a rhetorical question, saying "who knows?" and taken with the preceding statements the intent is abundantly clear; that we share the same fate as every creature: how do you know that this man's spirit goes up any more than you know that the spirit of a cow does? or that the spirit of this man goes down? both are dust; both return to dust. who knows? God knows.
put that together with chapter 12 "the conclusion of the matter" - the dust returns to the dust from which it came, and the spirit returns to the Lord who gave it also ((in re: Genesis 2:7, 2:19 etc - exactly the same word for man and for beast alike: living soul))


so --
if i tug on this 'Ecclesiastes string' ((because he certainly has that wrong)), does this man's whole argument unravel?
if death existed in the earth before sin for animals, the scripture calls men and beasts no different, so death also existed for Adam. he was decaying anyway, and i suppose in this man's view, he's awful lucky the lion, the tiger or the bear didn't eat him when he named them each. it further implies that when God said to Adam, from dust he was taken, and to dust he will return, this isn't judgement at all; it's a casual statement of fact about the state Adam was already in whether he sinned or not.

 

[posthuman]

I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21)

v. 19 -- "they all have the same breath"

v. 21 -- "the breath of man .. the breath of the beast"

same word. in all 3 instances. ruach = wind, breath, spirit

doesn't this tell us something about Genesis 1-2?
how did God form all the living souls? out of dust, and then breathed the breath of life into them.
man, beast: no different. same dust, same breath. so now why would God give animals death, who know no sin?
as Crossnote points out, they are subjected to vanity not of their own will, and in expectation of being set free in the same glory that is even our own hope. that points to the victory of Christ over sin and death, which points to sin and death entering the world through Adam.

i see this man's argument presupposing a differentiation between himself and hedgehogs that isn't quite scriptural

 

[JamOn]

Obviously I 100% believe God is the creator and sustainer of life....I do however find the verbiage of Genesis very, very inteesting....in particular the two phrases....

Let the EARTH bring forth
Let the Sea bring forth

I also find it interesting that the BIRDS came from the sea.......!!

Flying fishies

 

[JamOn]

What’s the purpose of men with breast hahaha..

 

[JamOn]

What’s the purpose of men with breast hahaha..

Though if there’s spontaneous lactation, that’s nothing to take lightly could be hormone imbalance or worse.

 

[posthuman]

Though if there’s spontaneous lactation, that’s nothing to take lightly could be hormone imbalance or worse.

my friend wants to know if this can be caused by too much ice cream, and also whether that qualifies as worse or not?

 

[JamOn]

my friend wants to know if this can be caused by too much ice cream, and also whether that qualifies as worse or not?

Unfortunately could be a sign of the C word