Christian Forums

Quote from: Alan on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 08:40:49

That's not the point, since the vast majority of scientists would likely consider themselves agnostic and some even atheist, the idea of "creation" gets dismissed quickly. There exists no evidence to support the origins of matter and life, it is our faith in God that leads us to believe that it was He whom created. That said, the lack of spirituality in the field of science shouldn't detract from the evidence that has been brought to light.

And yet scripture argues differently.
It is written that God has made Himself CLEARLY present in His creation, so that no-one is without excuse. All truth resides in God, so those who doubt God or dismiss Him do not know the truth..they can't know the truth.

Now if you believe that God created this universe, then all the evidence scientists find can only point towards God.
Then if a scientist rejects God, he clearly does not know how to interpret the evidence, right?
And what value does a scientist have if he does not understand the evidence?

Scientist argument for the origin of matter is no less "out there" than a creator creating it by whatever means. Science is missing the boat and hurting themselves by not at least acknowledging the possibility of a creator as opposed to some other non-divine incredulous hocus pocus.

On the matter of the beginnings of everything that there is in the universe.

Science/Scientists theorized:

In the beginning, was the big bang!

God in Scriptures revealed:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Science/Scientists theorized:

Non-living matter produced or brought forth life forms by the long process of evolution. This includes everything from the simple living cell to the more complex plants, animals, and man.

God in Scriptures revealed: 

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.

Then 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." So 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.

Then 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. 

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness". So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


On the matter of the beginning of mankind:

Science/Scientists theorized:

Man evolved, as with the great apes, from a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Man came from likewise evolved ape-like creatures, by evolution.   

God in Scriptures revealed: 

The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

There is a side here that no one has contemplated. We are aliens on this planet. We did not somehow come from molten rock that once covered earth, we came from afar.

And those aliens that planted the seed of life on this planet are still with us today.

  (:-

Evidence for your position does not automatically mean your position is correct.

QuoteNow, to those who spend their life in the pursuit of the knowledge that they find in world philosophy & science, in all its fields, which they admit as concerning only the physical world, and nothing about God, hear what God have to say about wisdom & knowledge, and of the world...

I know a lot of biologists, most of them theists of some kind.   Even the ones who profess not to be theists, there is a recognition of a spiritual dimension to studying life in our world.   Every now and then, somewhere alone where there is just me and nature, I get an epiphany when all of it comes together and I apprehend the glory and wonder of His creation in this world:

QuoteScientist argument for the origin of matter is no less "out there" than a creator creating it by whatever means.

There is considerable evidence to support the origin of the universe in an expansion of space itself billions of years ago.  However, none of that excludes God as the final cause of this expansion, or the Creator of space itself before that moment.

QuoteScience is missing the boat and hurting themselves by not at least acknowledging the possibility of a creator as opposed to some other non-divine incredulous hocus pocus.

Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural.  It can't say anything about God.   Pretty much like plumbing.   

But scientists can.   There are other ways of knowing these things.

Scientist certainly can but most do not. It would be akin in their eyes to signing on with man caused gullible warming deniers.

That is right, science cannot address God, AND Scientist are doing the same poor job trying to explain the origin of matter without injecting God, which doesn't fit any paradigm either. If science can make the sweeping assumptions it does, why not the perfectly reasonable starting place of a Creator. The evidence of intelligent design is far greater than the something out of nothing hypothesis-es.

Quote from: AVZ on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 10:26:49

Now if you believe that God created this universe, then all the evidence scientists find can only point towards God.
Then if a scientist rejects God, he clearly does not know how to interpret the evidence, right?
And what value does a scientist have if he does not understand the evidence?

So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? 

Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.

And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:12:01
And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable will notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.

Philosophically perhaps, but not scientifically.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:12:01
And they do not or will not ratify the possible if not probable will notion of the existence of God. The evidences of a designer and creator are overwhelming.

Many, many, many do, that is the crux of this thread.

Yes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great. To me theistic evolution is a far fetched attempt to answer the unexplainable by Christians that have later become scientists.

Quote from: Alan on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:09:02

So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? 

Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.

we are not talking about observation but evidence.
It is very simple. If God created this universe, then all evidence for its existence points to God, or a creator as you will.

The Bible states that God has clearly and obviously revealed Himself in nature to the point that someone who will not recognize His hand in it, will be without excuse.

It therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:
- is a willfull liar
- interprets the evidence incorrectly or ignores it
- is without excuse for making the false conclusion

Why would I accept anything these guys have to say about the universe? They either have no clue what they are talking about or they lie about it.

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:32:24
Yes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great.

That's where Barbarian's belief that the interpretation of Genesis is not a salvation issue becomes vital, if more of us (regardless of which was we believe creation to have happened) set aside our own interpretations and relayed the message that "God just did it", maybe more would be inclined to gain a further understanding.

Quote from: AVZ on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:50:17
we are not talking about observation but evidence.
It is very simple. If God created this universe, then all evidence for its existence points to God, or a creator as you will.

The Bible states that God has clearly and obviously revealed Himself in nature to the point that someone who will not recognize His hand in it, will be without excuse.

It therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:
- is a willfull liar
- interprets the evidence incorrectly or ignores it
- is without excuse for making the false conclusion

Why would I accept anything these guys have to say about the universe? They either have no clue what they are talking about or they lie about it.

You sure know how to dance around a subject when you've been shown the obvious. 


Moving along....

I never claimed it was a salvation issue. It is simply obvious vs not so obvious. Ironic to me to have such a view at the same time as being a pragmatic seeker of answers. Yes, God did it. There is no reason to theistically explain the Big Bang with the inexplicable, when plain observation is more than adequate observation of a Creator. And not just a Causer of a Big Bang.

QuoteYes the Christians that became scientist later. The reverse of that seldom happens I would submit. In all my years, I have run across very few scientists that later became a Christian. The idealogical hard headedness is usually too great. To me theistic evolution is a far fetched attempt to answer the unexplainable by Christians that have later become scientists.

I am personally aware of a good number of them.   Granted, some of them were Muslim or Jewish believers, but there are also a fair number of former atheists who became Christians after they were scientists.    The most notable example, is Francis Collins:

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States.

Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.

Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the advancement of evolutionary creation.[3] In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

QuoteIt therefore logically follows that any scientist who studies nature and comes to a conclusion that God is not part of its creation:

Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.

He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 17:25:38

QuoteNow, to those who spend their life in the pursuit of the knowledge that they find in world philosophy & science, in all its fields, which they admit as concerning only the physical world, and nothing about God, hear what God have to say about wisdom & knowledge, and of the world...

Colossians 2:1 For...................the Father and of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

I know a lot of biologists, most of them theists of some kind.   Even the ones who profess not to be theists, there is a recognition of a spiritual dimension to studying life in our world.   Every now and then, somewhere alone where there is just me and nature, I get an epiphany when all of it comes together and I apprehend the glory and wonder of His creation in this world:

I'm pretty sure most of us who have gone to early school, were taught a little of science and a little of religion. So, it is no wonder that many a people have some kind of a taught knowledge & sense of god and of science. And in this physical world, there is indeed a wide range of interests that each of us can choose from and with which each spend their life on. In your case, that seems to be the nature around you that are said to have life (scientific meaning). And there's nothing wrong about that. It's what gives you pleasure and satisfaction. And it's nice to hear that with it you apprehend the glory and wonder of God's creation in this world.

However, not every scientist are like you. So, that is not the issue. Rather, the issue is about the world of science/scientists which aims to know even what is obviously unknowable, like the origin of life and of matter. It apparently has the belief that they have the power and wisdom to know through science. Apparently, to them, science is the way to the knowledge of all physical living and non-living reality, even their origins.

Another issue is that, science to them, so it seems, is a work that is achieved that depends in himself. He ask himself a question, then observes, gather data, hypothesize, experiments, calculates, theorize, and so on until he satisfactorily convinced himself that he had known the answer. And these they call scientific knowledge, they preach to all, and that, with great zeal. They seem to consider their work all good, essentially good even that all man should be taught of, and they seem to believe is for the good of all humanity and the world. Is science slowly showing itself a religion that has the self as the god? For I find it rather rare that scientist like you give glory to God because of science. The scientific world in general, takes credit and glory for their scientific works.

Yet another issue, is that, it seems that, while they say that they are doing what they do, for the good of mankind, some wanted to act like nature, and the scientific community seems to see nothing wrong about that. Some go to the point that he wanted to create in the lab what is created by nature. He does not see anything wrong with artificially impregnating women, or even a test tube baby, for example. Some may say, it's not science, it's the scientist who does that. Well perhaps, but it is science that gave the scientist the knowledge to do such things. Besides, science is man-made, and is about the physical and nothing about the spiritual, and so does not deal with morality. So, that implies that this scientific knowledge of artificial reproduction, the creation of a human life, is neither bad nor good. The scientist then who performs and applies this knowledge, scientifically speaking, does not do anything bad.

The question then is for us Christians, and especially to the scientist Christian like you, for every bit of scientific knowledge that the scientist comes up with based on his scientific work, is such scientific knowledge, knowledge of good or knowledge of evil?          

And may I add, as it makes me wonder, on the matter of artificial reproduction of man,  does the resulting creature have a soul like those naturally born?

Also, is this matter part of the evolution of man? If so, what part is this in the evolution of man? Is this part of Darwin's evolution by natural selection theory? 

Quote from: Alan on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:09:02

So then if a simple man, an atheist, looks out his window and observes that it is raining, his observation has no credibility? 

Like it or not, the observations of science cannot and do not deny God at the helm of creation.

Why do you think he is an atheist in the first place?

And of course he refuse to see God in whatever he observes, the rain, the stars, the moon, the sun, the oceans, etc.

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 23:05:22
Why do you think he is an atheist in the first place?

He was asking question in the hypothetical sense.  But of course you knew that.  You just didn't want to answer the question because it would obviously defeat the point you tried to make concerning observation and the development of knowledge.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:16:03
Philosophically perhaps, but not scientifically.

Same old played out and tired heap of dung. An atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist looks at the earth as their evidence and determines it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, and that is science because they said so. A creationist looks at the same evidence and rightly determines that millions of years certainly are not necessary when an outside agency, (God)which most obviously designed the unimaginable complexity that is life, was involved. The latter according to the former cannot be science, because, well, they said so. Baloney! You will not define what observations constitute genuine science for me or anyone else but in your own self important twisted mind.

Evolutionary science and scientists have made observations that they promoted as absolute truth that have been proved wrong over and over and over again. Just as creation scientists have  as well. This simply because science is making observations in order to try and establish that which cannot necessarily be seen or deduced without serious investigation and or some speculation in the formation of theories. Those who absolutely insist that their observations are unquestionable and unquestionably the only true scientific observations, are either extremely conceded and self important, or clearly demonstrating faith regarding the theories developed by those they support. Faith is the bottom line of both sides of this issue period. Creationists are just of course more willing to admit, that their observations are based on the belief that God's word is an accurate account of our origins. Evolutionists on the other hand choose a different path. Their faith is for the most part, in the observations of fallen humanities own conjectures and theories apart from the word of God. Their faith is in there own intellect and skill of observation, over the testimony of scripture. That is all.

Evolutionists can tell themselves and others that only their observations constitute true science over and over as many times as they wish, it will never make it so. To the contrary, such is the very hight of self delusion. The fact that when people tell themselves something over and over enough times tends to toward belief, will never make anything true. The people on this board who are creationists are not mentally inferior to evolutionists at all. Their observations are every bit as tenable and demonstrative as those of evolutionists who are themselves simply those of another faith, some of whom, demand their faith is the only real science. Hogwash!

Evolutionists simply have no faith in the scriptures which testify of God's creation in six days. Their faith is in other observations of fallen humanity. That is all. Because of that faith, they cannot take large sections of scripture literally. Not to mention, adequately explain the many dichotomies created by this denial concerning the rest of the testimony given in scripture.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 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.

Creation and evolution are theories which require faith regarding that which cannot be seen. It did not and most often does not take place right in front of us. Creationists faith is in the word of God, the bible. Evolutionists faith is in the word of man, fallen humanity. That is all.

Quote from: Alan on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 18:51:46

That's where Barbarian's belief that the interpretation of Genesis is not a salvation issue becomes vital, if more of us (regardless of which was we believe creation to have happened) set aside our own interpretations and relayed the message that "God just did it", maybe more would be inclined to gain a further understanding.

Which is nothing less than to say, if more of us would jut set aside the testimony of scripture in favor of the testimony of man, maybe more would be inclined to have faith in man over the word of God. Yes lets reduce the testimony of Genesis and other large portions of scripture to just four words, "God just did it", because evolutionists say it will make things so much easier. Yet so many cannot see the open warfare evolution makes upon the word of God. It is no wonder that the Church of Rome which fought so long to keep the word of God out of the hands of the people, has embraced evolution, it seems they share the desire to stifle the word of God with the superior observations of man or a man as they see it. Shall we now reduce the creation account in Genesis, the fourth commandment, and all other testimony in scripture of creation in six days to "God just did it" for the convenience of evolutionists and Catholics who either don't appreciate or choose to bellevue it?

2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Are evolutionists now more enlightened than the apostle Paul? Apparently they believe so.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 10:25:49
Which is nothing less than to say, if more of us would jut set aside the testimony of scripture in favor of the testimony of man, maybe more would be inclined to have faith in man over the word of God. Yes lets reduce the testimony of Genesis and other large portions of scripture to just four words, "God just did it", because evolutionists say it will make things so much easier. Yet so many cannot see the open warfare evolution makes upon the word of God. It is no wonder that the Church of Rome which fought so long to keep the word of God out of the hands of the people, has embraced evolution, it seems they share the desire to stifle the word of God with the superior observations of man or a man as they see it. Shall we now reduce the creation account in Genesis, the fourth commandment, and all other testimony in scripture of creation in six days to "God just did it" for the convenience of evolutionists and Catholics who either don't appreciate or choose to bellevue it?

Nope.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 09:18:18
Same old played out and tired heap of dung. An atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist looks at the earth as their evidence and determines it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, and that is science because they said so. A creationist looks at the same evidence and rightly determines that millions of years certainly are not necessary when an outside agency, (God)which most obviously designed the unimaginable complexity that is life, was involved. The latter according to the former cannot be science, because, well, they said so. Baloney! You will not define what observations constitute genuine science for me or anyone else but in your own self important twisted mind.

Perhaps an atheistic evolutionist or theistic evolutionist does look at the evidence and determines the universe it is millions and millions of years old and everything came about through gradual evolution, but so does the Christian evolutionist.  [Actually it is billions and billions not millions and millions] But you seem to be so thoroughly self-righteous in your own views that any other than those preclude one from being a Christian.  And you talk about a heap of dung ! ! !

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 14:48:28
  [Actually it is billions and billions not millions and millions]

I honestly do not give a flying fig if it is millions or billions, or only thousands of years old.

What do you say is the age of man, as identified and defined  by Adam (and Eve)?

If you  are honest that is the only thing that should concern anyone because that is relevant to where we all will be spending eternity once
we manage to escape this spaceship we are on, called earth.

I believe that if Usher's accounting of the time between Adam and Jesus is anywhere close to being correct then man, the human being defined as one to whom God has given a spirit, is in the range of 6000 to 10,000 years old.  That says nothing whatsoever about the hundreds of thousands of years for which hominids other than man may have walked the earth or about the age of the earth or the universe.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 03, 2017 - 15:20:00
I believe that if Usher's accounting of the time between Adam and Jesus is anywhere close to being correct then man, the human being defined as one to whom God has given a spirit, is in the range of 6000 to 10,000 years old.  That says nothing whatsoever about the hundreds of thousands of years for which hominids other than man may have walked the earth or about the age of the earth or the universe.

I agree with this. (And some readers here know why)

But how do you account for the creation story in Genesis.

I am referring to the God created in 7 days, which most believe was 7 literal days.

Even if you were to take into account

2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That only could stretch creation of when God began creation bionically  back 6 or 7 thousand years.

Can you rectify a million/billion year theory with the Bible.... or have we finally found a biblical error?

Ginger Rella,

First, I believe that 2 Peter 3:8 is not asserting some sort of mathematical formula for years in God's eyes, but rather the fact that time is totally irrelevant in God's eyes; it is meaningless.  Let's face it, in God's realm of eternity of what significance is a few billion years?  The obvious answer is none whatsoever. Billions and billions of years do not constitute even an infinitesimal dot along the time-line of eternity.

Second, I think the message of the Genesis account of creation is not one of a detail of how but rather one of a detail of who; that is, who God is;  He is Creator God.  There is no error.

Third, I have no problem rectifying a million/billion year theory with the Bible.  There are places in the universe even today in which only days have passed while in that interval millions/billions of years have passed here on earth.  That is one of the remarkable results of Einstein's theory of relativity.  If viewed from the very beginning from the point of view of the expansion of space and relativity, it is easy to rectify the billions of years looking back from earth's perspective with mere days looking forward from God's perspective.  The Jewish physicist/theologian Gerald Schroeder explains how this can be in his article, The Age Of The Universe, which you can find here:

                 http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53

It is written for the non-technical so I think you might find it interesting.  His point is that the scientific view of billions of years and the biblical view of days are one and the same.  They are just presented from a different point of view with respect to the space-time considerations within relativity.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 02, 2017 - 22:34:22
Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.

He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.

You are missing the point. Scripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.
That makes every scientist who studies nature and insists God is not involved  a dumbass.

So here we have a guy who according to scripture comes to an obvious impossible conclusion.
And why would we then take such a scientist seriously?

I can imagine the layman being swept away by the evolution argument, but if God says that He purposely presented Himself in nature, then the scientists whose profession it is to study that nature must be the biggest morons alive for not acknowledging the obvious.

Hiding themselves behind the statement that science cannot say anything about the supernatural is the excuse of a fool.

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Dec 04, 2017 - 07:20:06You are missing the point. Scripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.

No, you are missing the point.  There is nothing about evolution that says that God is not involved.  It is one explanation of the manner in which God is involved.  The fact that a scientist does not acknowledge God as being involved does not change God's involvement or the manner of God's involvement.  Your explanation of God's involvement relies entirely on your translation/interpretation of one Hebrew word, i.e., "yome", as it is used in the Genesis account of creation.  Now unless you are a Hebrew scholar, and I do not think you are, that is a terribly tenuous position to be in.  And an even more tenuous position from which to denigrate any who disagree with you.

Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.

1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?

To the Christian scientists:

1. When God will create the new heavens and the new earth, what "matter" do you think will the heavens and the earth be made up of?
2. Will the new earth be made up of millions and billions years old of evolved materials or what?
3. Will the new heavens and the new earth be created in a matter of days, weeks, months, or billion of years?
4. Will there be another big bang to this effect?
5. Will the lion have evolved to eat straw and the wolf and the lamb evolved that they shall feed together?

Quote from: Michael
Some questions, among many, for our intelligent scientists here who believe the theory of the human evolution and the big bang theory.

1. What do you say is the purpose of the evolution of man?
-To ensure survival of the species, the same as any evolved species.


2. At what point will man stop to evolve?
-Far too complicated and controversial topic to answer in a few lines, but let's just say that man has stopped evolving to his environment in the biological sense and has now adopted cultural evolution.

3. If life, and so then man, was produced by non-living matter, and if man become extinct, will man, after some billion years later, exist again by the evolution of life from non-living matter?
-All life has a creator, that creator is God.


4. From formerly not being ashamed of being naked, to clothing one's self, an evolution thing?
-Of course, it falls into the category of society, man is a sociological creature that has been aware of himself and his environment for a very long time.

Barbarian observes:
Would be misusing science, since there is no way science can say anything at all about the supernatural.
     
    He might do so on philosophical or religious grounds, but he could not do that from any scientific study of nature.

QuoteYou are missing the point.

No, I think you're misunderstanding what science can do.  It's not a source of ultimate truth.  It's just a way of figuring out how nature works.   It's like plumbing.   You learn about some principles and then use those to figure out problems and make things work.   God is behind all the phenomena that a plumber must understand, but he doesn't need to know that to work as a plumber.

QuoteScripture says that God has revealed Himself in nature in such a way that no one can have an excuse.

There are times when I see nature as a scientist at the same time I see it as a Christian.   Those times are deep epiphanies for me.  But you don't have to have both of them at once.

QuoteThat makes every scientist who studies nature and insists God is not involved  a dumbass.

Nope.  I know some very capable and perceptive scientists who are not theists.

QuoteI can imagine the layman being swept away by the evolution argument,

Evidence carries the day, after all.   

QuoteHiding themselves behind the statement that science cannot say anything about the supernatural is the excuse of a fool.

If you think so, you have misunderstood one or both of them.