Christian Forums and Message Board

Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction? (Author : RB) A WiseMan saying.....

"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."

Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.

---

Reply #1 by 4WD

A WiseMan saying.....

Quote

"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."

Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.

And if buildings were living beings, they would probably have eaten the woodpeckers. But alas....

---

Reply #2 by Victor08 https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016

Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being

03 | Bible Creation

The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

---

Reply #3 by Amo

https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016

Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being

03 | Bible Creation

The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

Looks like they missed

Modern Evolution Myth
Stories of Coming Into Being

Fallen humanity gropes around within the box of their microscopic planet, occupying an even smaller spec of time in eternity, and presumes to figure out their origins through evolutionary progressive mutation. Creating and redefining evidence as their theory evolves according to the dictates of their misguided efforts to uphold the same against all incriminating evidence, or serious lack of supporting evidence.

---

Reply #4 by The Barbarian Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

---

Reply #5 by AVZ

Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?

Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.

---

Reply #6 by The Barbarian

Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.

Not everything in creationism twists to shed doubt on God's word.   There are some forms of creationism that are consistent with God's word.    And most creationists are as sincere and devout in their love of God as any other Christian.

---

Reply #7 by RB

Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.

Amen my brother~From the beginning the Biblical record has been very clear that God creating the worlds, and He set the time keepers in motion in the heavens to implement its days. But lately, the real nature of the origin of the universe has been the subject of much discussion and debate by professing Christians. The sad fact is, there are many professing Christians who have swallowed the theory (and it's ONLY a theory) of evolution hook, line and sinker. And more than a few doubting Theologians have consequently attempted to incorporate man's humanistic reasoning and rationalizations into Christianity~ (I heard Jimmy Swaggart recently do this with his Gap theory in Genesis one~he did struggle in trying to present it) Some with their modern day theories of Theistic Evolution, they preach subjections like, "God created the world through evolution." But when considered carefully, Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms. Because it effectively makes all of God's word untrustworthy and suspect. For if one part of it is subject to manipulation and private opinion, then all of it is subject to this form of interpretation. We reject anyone's teaching that makes God's word untrustworthy and suspect. Unfortunately, what we have in this instance is an attempt by those who have their faith in the words of men, to try and have the best of both worlds. In other words, they want to profess some belief in God, and yet they want to also hold to what man has declared was the creation process. Mixing hot with cold, they have come up with a lukewarm solution that may be palatable for them, but is decidedly unpalatable to God. The fact is, you cannot serve two masters. The number one rule of sound hermeneutics is that when man's word blatantly contradicts God's word, then God's word must be the final arbiter of truth. And that rule stands no matter how cleverly the contradictions are cloaked or disguised. Indeed, how could there be the evolution of species when scripture tells us very clearly that the world, and all that was therein, was "created" in six days? And yes, I'm well aware of the half baked theories by compromising Theologians that the six days of creation weren't literal days, but these theories (like the men who cook them up), are in direct contradiction to all that the word of God plainly declares. And not contradicting something that God said implicitly, but contradicting what God has said explicitly and in very plain rational grammatical context. This attempt by some to justify the days of scripture to be understood outside of what is the common use of language in the Bible completely ignores the additional facts and qualifications that God has given. For the Bible not only says that the heavens and earth and everything therein was created in six days, He says that the seventh day makes up the Sabbath week. Indeed, this is where man's seven day week has come from. Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding. From what God has inspired written, we would have to be deliberately trying "not" to receive the very plain language, in order to understand it as anything but six literal days. So I must wonder about people trying to mix biblical Christianity with evolution, it's like trying to mix grace with works, they are opposite in their meaning.

Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.

And IT IS, but much more so to God who has given to us his very own testimony concerning these things, which every believer receives by faith, without trying to appease the skeptics and  men who "think" they are wise above the scriptures!

---

Reply #8 by The Barbarian Nothing in evolution denies God's word.   How could it?   He made evolution.    Nor does anything in evolutionary theory say anything contrary to God's word.   

Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding.

The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged.   This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.

However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it.    Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other.   That does not serve God.

---

Reply #9 by 4WD

The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged.   This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.

It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.

However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it.    Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other.   That does not serve God.

AMEN to that.  And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.

---

Reply #10 by The Barbarian I don't care to say who starts these things.   I only wish they would stop. 

(Edit)

By that, I don't mean that it's wrong to discuss the issue.   Iron sharpens iron.    What I mean is that it's wrong to suggest that those who have a different opinion than we do, are somehow "calling God a liar", or are not real Christians.    Christians have all sorts of opinions on the way He created living things in their diversity, and none of those opinions separate any of us from God.

---

Reply #11 by Lady Daffodil

A WiseMan saying.....

Quote

"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."

Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.

[/Wow, I LOVE that quote!!!!  font]

---

Reply #12 by The Barbarian

"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."

I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all.

Let God be God, and have it His way.

---

Reply #13 by RB

I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.

If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!

Hebrews 11:3~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.

Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!

By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God. Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution, this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes, by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.

---

Reply #14 by Michael2012 I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Now, I'd asked this question:

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Answer: Jesus Christ.

---

Reply #15 by The Barbarian

I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

It is an observed fact.   There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

I am a Christian

So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

 

---

Reply #16 by Amo http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-observable-fact/


Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
 
Evidence for Creation


“Evolution is fact!” is one of the most popular evolutionary assertions made by evolutionists, ranging from those at the National Center for Science Education to those working for PBS.1, 2 Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.

Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species. He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.” Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God. Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim? By assuming that all change is evolutionary change. Why is this assumption wrong? Because the Bible permits biological change to a certain degree and, therefore, not all change is evolutionary change.

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.3

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began this article and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.

Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.

The evidence for the biblical model is so strong that even the world’s most famous living evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, must concede this point. “We can’t see evolution happening because we don’t live long enough,” he said in a 2009 interview.4 In other words, evolution is unobservable.

Wow. Not only is the “Evolution is fact!” claim false, but the complete opposite is true. Furthermore, since evolution is not observable, evolution isn’t even science! Yet, somehow in spite of this, Dawkins still concludes, “Evolution is a fact.”4 In light of what we’ve just discussed and what he himself admitted, we know he reached his conclusion in spite of the evidence—not because of it.

---

Reply #17 by Amo http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=674


Someone might object, however, that the quotations I have employed (from evolutionists such as Dobzhansky, Clark, and others) to document the nonverifiability of evolution were written during the 1950s and 1960s. Much scientific research on evolution has occurred in the decades that followed, and thus it might be considered unfair to rely on such “dated” critiques of a concept like evolution that changes so rapidly and that has been studied so intently.

My response to such an objection would be to point out that I used the quotations from the 1950s and 1960s intentionally, in order to document that the situation over the past four decades has not improved. By the 1970s, for example, little had changed. At the height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grassé was considered by many to be France’s greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky wrote of him: “Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (1975, 29:376). In 1977, Grassé wrote in The Evolution of Living Organisms:


Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.

Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved (pp. 8,202, emp. added).

Three years later, in 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” After dismissing any sort of “directed evolution,” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.” Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it” (31:138, emp. in orig.).

Just a little over a year later, on November 5, 1981, the late Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:


One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

Colin Patterson was not the only one expressing such views, however. Over the past two decades, distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. The same year that Dr. Patterson traveled to America to speak, Dr. Hoyle wrote:


I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).

In fact, Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.


The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).

And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy:


At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who is a professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at the University College, Cardiff, Wales) went even further. Using probability figures applied to cosmic time (not just geologic time here on the Earth), their conclusion was:


Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe suggested, however, that this “higher intelligence” did not necessarily have to be, as far as they were concerned, what most people would call “God,” but simply a being with an intelligence “to the limit of God.” They, personally, opted for “directed panspermia,” a view which suggests that life was “planted” on the Earth via genetic material that originated from a “higher intelligence” somewhere in the Universe. But just one year later, in 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:


A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (20:16, emp. added).

Three years after that, in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Denton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:


In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.

The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.

The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp. 16,327,353, emp. in orig.).

In 1987, two years after Denton’s book was published, Swedish biologist Søren Løvtrup wrote in an even stronger vein:


After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think the answer is that current evolutionists follow Darwin’s example—they refuse to accept falsifying evidence (p. 352, emp. added).

In his 1988 book, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe, Australian physicist Paul Davies wrote: “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming” (p. 203, emp. added). That same year, evolutionary physicist George Greenstein wrote:


As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (1988, p. 27).

In 1992, Arno Penzias (who fourteen years earlier had shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics with Robert W. Wilson for their discovery of the so-called “background radiation” left over from the Big Bang) declared:


Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan [p. 83, parenthetical comment in orig.].

In his 1994 book, The Physics of Immortality, Frank Tipler (who coauthored with John D. Barrow the massive 1986 volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) wrote:


When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (Preface).

One year later, NASA astronomer John O’Keefe admitted:


We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (1995, p. 200).

Then, in 1998, evolutionist Michael Denton shocked everyone with his new book, Nature’s Destiny, when he admitted:


Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes....

Although this is obviously a book with many theological implications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for design; however, as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the spirit and tradition of William Paley’s Natural Theology (pp. xvii-xviii,xi-xii, emp. in orig.).

Such quotations could be multiplied almost endlessly. Even a cursory examination shows that there is much more that is “unknown” than “known” in the evolutionary scenario.

---

Reply #18 by The Barbarian

Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

Yep.  Even speciation has been directly observes.   Most creationists admit the evolution of new species.   Many even acknowledge the evolution of higher taxa.

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *

Nathaniel has argued that there are no transitional fossils.   Even honest creationists freely admit that there are many of them.   Would you like me to show you?   Now Doctor Jeanson is a cell biologist, and was apparently shocked when paleontologists showed him numerous examples of such transitionals.   But later, he went right back to claiming otherwise.   So that's extremely damaging to his credibility.

Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.

Undergraduates demonstrate it every year.   Let's look at that claim.   Show me which of Darwin's five points have not been demonstrated to happen in nature.

Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species.

Scripture does not say how God produced the variety of life we see.   It merely says the earth brought forth life.

He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.”

If God had said how He did it, then you might have a point.  But of course, He didn't.

Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God.

God says He created the Earth, and then the Earth brought forth life.   Why should it bother anyone that He used nature to produce life?

Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

That is a modern belief, not consistent with scripture.   In fact, until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism, most creationists were old Earth creationists.  It was, for example, the form of creationism presented at the Scopes trial.

So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim?

Direct observation.   

By assuming that all change is evolutionary change.

No, you've been misled about that.   It's why Darwinism was confirmed, and Lamarckism was refuted.

 

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.

No.  That's a misunderstanding.   For example, the Institute for Creation Research endorses the work of John Woodmorappe, who argues that "kind" is at the level of family.   But other creationists have other ideas.    Which taxon do you think defines "kind", and what is your evidence for that?

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae,

So it's family?   But then that would mean humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are the same "kind."   You sure that's right?
     

---

Reply #19 by Victor08

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?

http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html

A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander’s Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat

B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon’s Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose

C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet

D
Dhole
Diardi’s Clouded Leopard
Dingo

E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat

F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa

G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy’s Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier’s Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf

H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk

I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose

J
Jackson’s Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat

K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod

L
Least Weasel
Leighton’s Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel

M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller’s Mongoose
Mountain Coati

N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon

O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla

P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas’ Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues’s Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon

R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat

S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous’s Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger

T
Tayra
Tiger

W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine

Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin

---

Reply #20 by Alan

So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?

You should know Victor, carnivores didn't exist prior to the flood, T-Rex's ate leaves   


Never really heard a good explanation as to how parasites survived though  [size=78%] [/size]

---

Reply #21 by Victor08 Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.

https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.

Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.

These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.

How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?

---

Reply #22 by tooldtocare I'm still here (:-

---

Reply #23 by RB

Where did Noah keep his bees? In the ark hives.

Are you mocking God Victor? What difference does it make how and where each animal that came unto Noah lived? If I were you, I would not be overly concerned about what is not revealed to us, but WHAT IS! There were bees for sure that went unto Noah under God's guidance, JUST AS ALL ANIMALS came unto Adam so he could name them. John Calvin wrote:

Moses now explains,—what had before been doubtful,—in which manner the animals were gathered together into the ark, and says that they came of their own accord. If this should seem to any one absurd, let him recall to mind what was said before, that in the beginning every kind of animals presented themselves to Adam, that he might give them names. And, truly, we dread the sight of wild beasts from no other cause than this, that seeing we have shaken off the yoke of God, we have lost that authority over them with which Adam was endued. Now, it was a kind of restoration of the former state of things when God brought to Noah those animals which he intended should be preserved through Noah's labor and service. For Noah retained the untamed animals in his ark, in the very same way in which hens and geese are preserved in a coop. And it is not superfluously added, that the animals themselves came, as God had instructed Noah; for it shows that the blessing of God rested on the obedience of Noah, so that his labor should not be in vain. It was impossible, humanly speaking, that in a moment such an assemblage of all animals should take place; but because Noah, simply trusting the event with God, executed what was enjoined upon him; God, in return, gave power to his own precept, that it might not be without effect. Properly speaking, this was a promise of God annexed to his commands. And, therefore, we must conclude, that the faith of Noah availed more, than all snares and nets, for the capture of animals; and that, by the very same gate, lions, and wolves, and tigers, meekly entered, with oxen, and with lambs, into the ark. And this is the only method by which we may overcome all difficulties;

And also to believe that God brought to him the best of the best,~ faith believes this, why should we believe anything less than this? So, concerning your article.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark........Parasites and diseases.

I will only say this, for the article does not deserve more than what I'm going to say. With God nothing is imposssible~which animals God CAUSED to go unto Noah, you can believe that they were FREE OF DISEASES~God's does often work totally against what seemly is an impossibility to make it work for his own glory and honor. The list is LONG in the scriptures~Consider:

Daniel 1:5-16~"And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse."

ALL LAWS of nature would tell us that ANY KING'S daily provision would be a FAR superior diet to make one's skin fairer, hair and their health overall superior to those who were given pulse and water~and NO ONE would ever believe a poor man's diet of pulse and water one would GAIN weight and one's countenances much fairer than those who had a king's daily provision, the best money could buy...now would they?

These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood.

Sir, the ONLY unfortunate souls where those deluded souls OUTSIDE of the ark, and those who believe such nonsense, to even think that such SMALL THINGS God did not have PERFECT control of ALL ANIMALS that he sent to Noah to receive into the ark! It is so amazing that every deluded evolutionist looks for holes in our FORTRESS OF FAITH....but there are none to be found!

---

Reply #24 by Amo

Quote from: Amo on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 08:41:33

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?

http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html

A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander’s Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat

B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon’s Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose

C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet

D
Dhole
Diardi’s Clouded Leopard
Dingo

E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat

F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa

G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy’s Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier’s Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf

H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk

I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose

J
Jackson’s Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat

K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod

L
Least Weasel
Leighton’s Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel

M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller’s Mongoose
Mountain Coati

N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon

O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla

P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas’ Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues’s Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon

R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat

S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous’s Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger

T
Tayra
Tiger

W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine

Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin

Those details are not provided by scripture. If such extensive details were provided in scripture concerning all that is addressed by them, one would spend an entire life just trying to finish reading the Bible. Your questions reveal the real nature of your problem with the Bible, your lack of faith in God's word and therefore God Himself. Instead of easily identifying simple answers to your created or warmly welcomed dilemmas according to true faith in scriptures, you opt to cast doubt upon the accuracy of the word of God. You beleive yourself and other antagonists, to be of to superior intellect to accept that there is a being who could easily solve what would appear to be problems from your fallen human perspective. This you do, even though you believe humans are just more highly evolved apes without hair, rather than creatures created in the image of God, as the scriptures plainly testify.

Your presumed insurmountable obstacles are no problem whatsoever for God, or the mentally, physically, and intellectually superior human beings that existed before the flood. Your lack of faith in God's word has you seeing everything backwards. It causes you to doubt God's abilities, and view humanity as less capable and intelligent as apes the further back towards creation one goes, instead of 
more intelligent and capable as beings closer to the image of God nearer creation as scripture testifies. Thinking yourself wise, you have become a fool, placing the intellect and powers of observation of fallen humanity above the word of God. You worship the created, in place of the Creator.

The building and preparation of the ark was a huge undertaking which spanned 120 years. The builders were mentally, physically, and intellectually superior to humanity of today, not inferior ape like creatures. They lived up to nine hundred years, enabling the same people to start and finish the job with no interruption or need to change hands. They were directed by God Himself, and we do not know all the details regarding the same, He may have been more involved than we know from the short account recorded. Apart from this of course, God had, has, and will always continue to have complete control over all aspects of His creations. He is in control of nature, not the other way around. Nor is He in any way shape or form limited by it as we are. He brought the animals of His own choosing to the ark, and if He so desired all carnivores would have eaten straw during the deluge, and done just fine in doing so. Nevertheless, we do not know those details. Your lack of faith, causes your own short sightedness and inability to see outside of the box of fallen human limitations you impose upon yourself and others. You are a scoffer, who pretends to worship the same God of scripture that I and others do, while continually exalting the doubts and or supposed superior intellect of fallen humanity above the written word of God.

Jn 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? Is He "the way, the truth, and the Life, or not? Why do you reject the testimony of the Father and the Son, in favor of the testimony of fallen humanity? Is it not because of your lack of faith?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

You are specifically addressed in scripture as one who lacks the faith necessary to please God. You may profess whatever you wish, but you fool yourself if you think you may exalt the observations of fallen and deprived humanity above the word of God, and still retain God's favor. God's favor toward humanity has been revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How long that favor will last is now in our hands, concerning how we will handle the word of God in relation to Him, and our fallen brothers and sisters. We will choose God's word and worship Him in doing so, or we will choose our own words and worship ourselves in doing so. This is where it all started. God said one thing, Satan said another. Fallen humanity chose to believe what Satan said above what God said, and here we are. Choose you this day whom you will serve.






 

---

Reply #25 by Amo

Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.

https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.

Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.

These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.

How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?

More of the same lack of faith and short sightedness of God according to the same.

---

Reply #26 by Michael2012

Quote

I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact. A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Evolution may be to you an observed fact, and perhaps you are convinced by some theory that tries to explain it. But that really does not make it a reality.
 

Quote

And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are. And besides, better theories remain to be theories which, by such statement suggest theories to have a never ending replacement by a better one.   

Quote

Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
 

Quote

I am a Christian

So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Perhaps. But that neither make evolution a reality. I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Quote

and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Nothing like that. God created man, and that in His image, and all living things and creatures according to their kind, not some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into all sorts of living things and creatures, and even into man who evolved to be in His image, and that even perhaps, by chance.   

Quote

Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Answer: Jesus Christ.

Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

I don't quite see what you are saying here.

Anyway, don't you agree with my answer?

---

Reply #27 by notreligus "Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.   

---

Reply #28 by Alan

"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.   

Never heard that before. 

---

Reply #29 by The Barbarian

Never heard that before. 

Because it's completely false.    Astonishing that anyone would even suggest that is what Christians think, evolutionists or not. 

---

Reply #30 by The Barbarian

I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.

I just showed you the difference.   Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts.   There are theories that explain them.

A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Almost.   A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena.   Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories. 

To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Which is why so many people get confused about it.  "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.

Evolution may be to you an observed fact,

It's been repeatedly observed.   Can't get more real than that.

 

And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Barbarian responds:
Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.

Yep.  You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc.    Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game.   That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.

Bingo.
 
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian.   So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

But that neither make evolution a reality.

God made it a reality.  We're just learning about it.

I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too?   Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS

Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.   If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.

 Barbarian observes:
 Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Now, some evolutionist may say:    What is your proof of God?

Barbarian chuckles:         
Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

I don't quite see what you are saying here.

I know.  It's why you keep going in circles.   Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.   

---

Reply #31 by Michael2012

Quote

I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

Quote

A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.

I just showed you the difference.   Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts.   There are theories that explain them.

Quote

A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Almost.   A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena.   Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories. 

Quote

To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Which is why so many people get confused about it.  "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.

Quote

Evolution may be to you an observed fact,

It's been repeatedly observed.   Can't get more real than that.

 

Quote

And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Barbarian responds:
Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

Quote

By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.

Yep.  You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc.    Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game.   That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.

Quote

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

Quote

If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.

Bingo.
 
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian.   So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Quote

But that neither make evolution a reality.

God made it a reality.  We're just learning about it.

Quote

I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too?   Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?

Quote

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS

Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.   If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.

 Barbarian observes:
 Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Quote

Now, some evolutionist may say:    What is your proof of God?

Barbarian chuckles:         
Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

Quote

I don't quite see what you are saying here.

I know.  It's why you keep going in circles.   Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man? 

---

Reply #32 by The Barbarian

Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.

Of course.   How could His creation be inconsistent with His word?   I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;

Yes.  But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body.   So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance.   God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.

You said that God uses nature to produce living things.

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.

No.   Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.   How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

 

Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.

No.   The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.   

Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

Why would that bother you?   If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God?     I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.

If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.

Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

See above.   He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

That is supernatural, right?

Of course.   God does most things in this world by natural means.   It's why He made nature.   But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.

This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?

You're catching on.

If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.  Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

 

---

Reply #33 by Michael2012 I posted:

Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Your response:

Quote

Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.

Of course.   How could His creation be inconsistent with His word?   I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.

Quote

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Quote

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;

Yes.  But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body.   So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance.   God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.

Quote

You said that God uses nature to produce living things.

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Quote

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.

No.   Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.   How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

 

Quote

Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.

No.   The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.   

Quote

Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

Quote

Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

Why would that bother you?   If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God?     I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.

Quote

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.

If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.

Quote

Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Quote

Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

See above.   He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Quote

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Quote

You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Quote

That is supernatural, right?

Of course.   God does most things in this world by natural means.   It's why He made nature.   But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.

Quote

This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?

You're catching on.

Quote

If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.  Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

Barbarian:

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Michael:

What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?

Barbarian:

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Michael:

Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?

The earth brought forth living things. That does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production of the grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind.

When God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” That does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of the birds.

Barbarian:

Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened. 

Michael:

At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating. And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.

And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then, but is a theory that tries to explain how already existing living things change over time and evolve into  or become something that they originally were not.

And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?

Barbarian:

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that. 

Michael:

So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus. That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?

What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures and is what it teaches. There is no scriptures that even hints that God created like so.

Barbarian:

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Michael:

I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life. And that only after God have formed it, that God breathed into it the breath of life. It was only then that man became a living being, that is, with life.

Barbarian:

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Michael:

Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.

I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness. But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it and explain how things came to be, coming up with theories as the Big Bang and evolution of life. Over the years, men came to think that by doing so, there will come a time that the human will someday know all truth and explain all things, and perhaps believe that man can do even what is impossible to do today, leading to ideas such as going to and living in Mars, teleportation, among others. Perhaps an excuse in doing this is saying that this is all for the good of humanity and for the glory of God, even while the obvious driving force really is for the survival of the human life and the pride and pleasures of man.

Barbarian:

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Michael:

Of course God do miracles for His own purpose. And this making water into wine is one such miracle. And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.

Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles, that science has an explanation or theory concerning it - the Big Bang and Evolution.

Barbarian:

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

Michael:

But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things. And if they can see them, they can make observations of them, can't they? And because they can see and make observations, some have come up with the theory of the Big Band and the theory of evolution.

See my comments regarding Romans 1:20 above.

---

Reply #34 by The Barbarian Barbarian observes:
Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, that I didn't.    God didn't give us the details.   I'm merely showing you that Genesis is consistent with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?

Gen. 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The earth brought forth living things.

Yep.  Nature.  That's how God created life.  Using already-created things.

Barbarian explains that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life:
Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating.

Even you admit that much.   Why not trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it?

And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.

You're getting it, now.

And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then

Not about the creation of life.  But certainly about the creation of life's diversity.

And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?

Since there were human populations before our particular kind, using fire, making art and tools, and so on, it seems inescapable it was one of them.   But which was the first to be given an immortal soul, and gaining a sense of good and evil, we do not know.   Nor do we need to know.  Only know that it was done by God and that makes all the difference.

Barbarian asks:
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus.

Or some other population of humans.   Why does it matter to you?

That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?

H. erectus, probably.   But we don't know for sure.   Obviously, it was a population that preceded our own.

What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures

Consistent with scripture.   As you see, it is.

and is what it teaches.

You know that's not what I said.   

Barbarian asks:
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life.

That is not what Genesis says.   It doesn't say that man was without life until God gave him a living spirit.   
 
Barbarian observes:
No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.

If you'll accept that much, why not accept it all?

I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness.

That's what I just told you.   I don't know how to make it any simpler.

But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it

We can learn efficient causes with science.   Final causes are forever beyond the reach of science.   Would you like to learn why?
 
Barbarian, regarding miracles:
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.

That's not the purpose of science.

Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles,

As St. Augustine pointed out, we are in awe of someone turning water to wine, while we take nature for granted.   Nature is a much larger miracle.   Not the least so, because God created it so as to be understandable and accessible to man.

Barbarian suggests:
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things.

You're still confusing science with faith.   Two different ways of knowing.    Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.
 

---