Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Proving Creationism???
I have some friends at school who are Christian, but believe in the evolution theory. My problem is proving to them that GOD created the universe. I have been hearing, "No One person can create the universe" Some add 7 deays, believeing that it is in Earth's "Days" I've been consulting the book of Genesis, but I'm still lost. Can you help me out?
Comments
I commend you for defending the faith and searching for answers in order to lead others to the truth. It is unfortunate but I am also hearing more Christians that I know accept evolution. What they do not understand is that creationism and evolution are both religions. One that follows God and the other that believes in so called scientists. For starters any Christian who does not believe in God as their creator then denies God as their savior. There are so many flaws in the arguments made by evolutionary biologists that this forum could not contain them. I do not understand how anyone can agree with them. Scientists themselves know that the claims they are making are ridiculous, but that is what a hard heart leads to. Do not let any one fool you with big scientific words and theories that mean nothing. Read The Bible and ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance in understanding the book of Genesis, this is what God wanted us to know about how he created the world. Nothing I or any one else could tell you is better and more reliable than God's account.
The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now.
The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long, which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the
evening and the morning were..."
The evidences for this are many, among which are:
1. The Solar day is the period of time between the sunrise and its rising again or between the sunset and its setting again. Since the sun was only created on the fourth day
(Gen. 1:16-19)., then the first four days were not solar days.
2. As for the seventh day, the Bible did not state that it has ended.
The Bible did not say [so the evening and the morning were the seventh day], and thousands of years passed from Adam till now while this seventh day is still going on. Accordingly, the days of creation are not Solar days but unknown periods of time.
3. As a whole, the Bible said about all the creation and its sixdays:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Gen. 2:4). So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six days of creation...
Taken from Many Years with People's Qestions - Volume I by H.H. Pope Shenouda III
About the 7 days thing, H.H. Pope Shenouda answered this:
The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now.
The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long, which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the
evening and the morning were..."
The evidences for this are many, among which are:
1. The Solar day is the period of time between the sunrise and its rising again or between the sunset and its setting again. Since the sun was only created on the fourth day
(Gen. 1:16-19)., then the first four days were not solar days.
2. As for the seventh day, the Bible did not state that it has ended.
The Bible did not say [so the evening and the morning were the seventh day], and thousands of years passed from Adam till now while this seventh day is still going on. Accordingly, the days of creation are not Solar days but unknown periods of time.
3. As a whole, the Bible said about all the creation and its sixdays:
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Gen. 2:4). So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six days of creation...
Taken from Many Years with People's Qestions - Volume I by H.H. Pope Shenouda III
Thanks danny_iki. That helped me out a lot. I've never thought of the seventh day still going on, so I'll be sure to add that to my arguement. Thanks Unworthy1 and Dgorgy61 too. Does anyone else have advice?
I) The Theory of Evolution:
The theory of evolution has two major aspects. The First is the ‘Origin of Species’
which is the title of the famous book by Charles Darwin (1859) in which he suggested
that simple creatures have evolved into more complex (higher) creatures over a long
period of time. Fish supposedly evolved into amphibians. Amphibians evolved into
reptiles. Reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Darwin hoped that the discovery of
‘Transitional Species’∗ would support his theory.
The second aspect is the ‘Origin of Life’ in which evolutionists suggest that the
first single celled organism evolved on the primitive earth due to a variety of processes
leading to the formation of simple organic compounds. These compounds combined
together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be
called living (Chemical Evolution). The problem with all the aspects of ‘Origin’ is that if
they occur by evolution they occur too slowly to be observed today. The best one can do
is to theorize, or speculate as to how it could have happened. Based on current knowledge
and laboratory results, to get proof on how it actually happened is not possible.
But as far as evolutionists are concerned the fact that we are here means it must
have happened. In doing this God is automatically eliminated as a possible cause. This is
precisely what evolution does, it claims that instead of being created by God we have
evolved from animals, instead of being created in the Image of God we have descended
from the apes. The theory of evolution has been the source and inspiration of a number of
sinful philosophies including Humanism, which effectively makes man his own god.
Our Lord said: “For a tree is known by its fruit” (Matt.12: 33).
“Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matt.7: 17). So if we
judge the tree of the theory of evolution by its fruits, then we are left with no other
conclusion than that tree needs to be “cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt.7: 19).
II) Arguments against evolution:
1) There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing on the
contrary the law of conservation of energy states the exact opposite. If there was
nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to causeanything to appear. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a CREATOR
you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.
2) No scientific law accounts for non-living things coming to life. The soil in your
garden didn’t turn into trees and flowers. The plants came from seeds, cuttings, or
grafts from other trees and flowers. Chemical evolution has not yet found how the
first single celled creature could have evolved. Suppose that man was able to make a
living cell in the test tube from raw chemicals, what does that demonstrate?
Simply that intelligence is required to create life.
3) Darwin suggested that all the forms of life we see on earth today have descended
from more primitive ancestors by slow gradual change over millions of years. This is
so slow that it would be impossible to observe during our lifetime. If this actually
happened then the fossil evidence should show a gradual change from one species of
animal into another. In Darwin’s days, and still today, the fossil evidence does not
show these intermediate life forms. It shows the final species that would be expected
with special creation.
4) Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do
we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms? Why is not nature in confusion
instead of the species being, as we see them well defined? Darwin’s theory of natural
selection is incapable of finding the link to prove how one kind of creature could
evolve into a completely different kind when it doesn’t have the genetic coding to do
so (mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures
more handicapped than the parents. Bacteria may be an exception for this rule
because they benefit from mutation but a bacterium remains a bacterium after
mutating).
5) Goldschmidt, Material basis of evolution, Yale Univ. Press.
“ To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection,
seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree”.
6) The inability to explain how the first living organism evolved and the lack of
transitional forms demonstrates that the theory of evolution is at best ‘a theory’, it is
not a proven fact. Despite this the majority of people believe evolution to be proven.
Faith rather than being based on facts hold the theory of evolution. If we therefore
adopt a forensic methodology and look at the evidence that is before us, then the
belief in evolution as a mechanism for our origin requires far more faith than the
belief in a Creator because of the ample evidence all around us that there is indeed a
Designer. “The heavens declare the glory of God. And the firmament shows His
handiwork” (Ps.19: 1).
7) Sir Fred Hoyle said about the theory of evolution: "That is about as ridiculous and
improbable as the proposition that a tornado, blowing through a junkyard, could
assemble a Boeing 747."
III) What does the Bible teach?
1) The Bible starts and ends with God as creator:
The Book of Genesis of course describe the creation and in the Book of Revelation it is
written: “You are worthy, O Lord to receive glory and honor and power; For You created
all things and by Your will they exist and were created” (Rev.4: 11). “Worship Him who
made heavens and earth, the sea and springs of water” (Rev.14: 7).
2) Faith is the key:
Scientists and evolutionists confess that there are many things about the origin of life that
they don’t understand but we say with St. Paul: “By faith, we understand that the worlds
were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of
things which are visible” (Heb.11: 3).
3) There is no excuse:
There is no excuse to those who don’t believe in God as the Creator. St. Paul said: “For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse” (Rom.1: 20).
4) The days (periods) of creation:
We need to realize that the word ‘day’ used in the first two chapters of the Book of
Genesis doesn’t mean a ’24 hour day’ but rather a period of time that could extend
millions of years. The solar system and the stars were not created until the fourth period
(day) therefore time, as we now know it did not exist until then. The holy scripture uses
the word ‘day’ in different meanings, ‘The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before the coming of the great and notable day of the Lord” (Acts2: 20).
Here ‘day’ means eternity. Also St. Peter said: “with the Lord one day is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day” (2Pet.3: 8).
5) The seventh day:
Notice that it wasn’t said about the seventh day ‘so the evening and the morning were the
seventh day’ that means that this seventh ‘day’ (period) extends from the creation of
Adam and eve until today. In other words all the years from the creation of man until
today are actually the seventh day!
IV) Q & A:
Q: Could God have created through evolution?
A: God could have used evolution to create. But He didn’t.
In spite of the fact that the creation could have taken millions of years, Holy Scripture
states that God created every living thing that moves, every winged bird that flies, and
every plant ‘according to their kind’ (Gen.1: 11,21). This means that God created mature
animals and plants ready to reproduce more of their own kind. Also Holy Scripture tells
us that the first man was created from dust not from an ape-like creature.
Theistic evolutionists (those who believe that God used evolution to create the world) are
really stretching the facts and only get a theory that harmonize with neither textbook
evolution nor with the Bible.
Q: What is the difference between evolution and adaptation?
A: Adaptation occurs within the same species to accommodate to outer environment.
This process doesn’t lead to the formation of a new species as evolution suggests. For
example the human beings were created vegetarians (Gen.1: 29) and it wasn’t until after
the flood that God permitted them to eat meat because all the crops were destroyed
(Gen.9: 3) so the digestive system of man ‘adapted’ to the new type of food but he
remained a human being.
Q: I have a classmate who is really convinced that humans evolved from apes.
What can I do to help him?
A: Pray for him, give him a copy of this lecture, give him a book from the list mentioned
below. If after all this he is still convinced that his great grandfather was a chimpanzee;
the only thing left for you to give him is a banana!
V) Recommended books:
• Evolution: The Fossils still say No! Duane T Gish, Creation-Life Publishers.
• The Controversy. Donald E Chittick, Multnomah Press.
• What about Origins. Dr. A J Montey White, Dunestone Printers Ltd.
• True science agrees with the Bible. M Bowden, Sovereign publications.
source:
http://www.suscopts.org/pdf/conference/2001college_abstract-evolution.pdf
This question was posted on suscopts.org:
The belief that we have evolved from chimpanzees still exists supported by the premise that chimpanzees and even dogs have been proved to be able to do simple math such 4 + 4 or even a little bit of algebra. Thus the faculty of thinking and reasoning as being the distinguishing factor between humans and monkeys does not seem to hold any more.
(Answer from H.G Youssef)
If the chimpanzees could talk and not just count, no doubt they would rebuke the supporters of evolution. In the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, we learn about a man named Balaam, whose eyes were so dimmed by his own arrogance that the donkey he was riding, saw the Angel of the Lord standing in front of them and tried to stop. The donkey had more sense than Balaam to acknowledge the Angel of the Lord. "Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, 'What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" (Numbers 22:28). Finally the Angel of the Lord rebuked Balaam and said to him, "Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times'" (Numbers 22:33).
Unless someone is willing to have a balanced understanding by researching scripture and the fathers' writings, discussion and debate regarding this topic are futile. I urge you to search the literature on the Diocese website or other Christian-based articles and documents and you will discover overwhelming support for the Holy Bible from Genesis to Revelation. "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve....But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15).
I'm sure if you keep looking online you can find tons of information on evolution (from our point of view).
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have
understanding” (Job 38: 4).
God Bless and give you wisdom in your argument.
All I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with believing in evolution and Christianity.
Wait wait wait...hold on. I think evolution is recieving a bit more aggression than it deserves you know. It has quite a bit of evidence going for it, and its not irrational to believe in. I think it has a few holes in it, but it could easily be true. The thing most people don't realise is evolution and God don't cross each other out. If God used evolution to create the diversity of life, so be it. In fact, in a way it even strengthens the argument for a designer. Put it this way, what's harder to create, a chair or a machine that makes chairs?
All I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with believing in evolution and Christianity.
I agree with you epchoicnainan, and I think I heard a sermon once, where the priest said that we, as christians do believe in evolution as a scientific fact, but only a certain type of evolution...microevolution, thus evolution within each species seperately
However, it seems to me this bit of info is flawed
4) Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do
we not everywhere see innumerable transition forms? Why is not nature in confusion
instead of the species being, as we see them well defined? Darwin’s theory of natural
selection is incapable of finding the link to prove how one kind of creature could
evolve into a completely different kind when it doesn’t have the genetic coding to do
so (mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures
more handicapped than the parents. Bacteria may be an exception for this rule
because they benefit from mutation but a bacterium remains a bacterium after
mutating).
According to my (limited) knowledge in science, and especially in Biology, every human being has within him the genetic code for all stages of evolution, but most of it is deactivated..
That's how I learned it in Biology class.
Now, it is also remarkable how the embryo seems to undergo the same stages of evolution that Darwin wrote about in the mother's womb. Starting from the eggcel with the spermcel in it, to multiplying into multi-cellular structure and at a time having (something similar to )gills and skin between fingers and toes..
So I am hoping any of our scientifically better informed members would care to comment ..
God bless you
Please pray for me
So I am hoping any of our scientifically better informed members would care to comment ..
Our learned members are quite so as always while the cat is away,the mouse has the chance to play until the cats meaw back.
You can not believe in both Christianity and Darwins theory of Evolution,when the claim is that,for example, humans evolved from apes (this would mean,there was an ape before Adam).You can not serve two masters at the same time.The farce theory of Evolution is the religion of the atheists ,their way of explaining how life exists without a Creator. The problem with Darwinians is that they tell us cats can become Tigers, rats can morph into crocodiles or that reptiles fly one day as birds. There is no scientific evidence for such drastic changes of species.A dog will always remain a dog,no matter how often or agressively one breeds it.The breeding may only result in a wide variations of dogs, but of the same species.
It is not the argument of the theory that is at the centre of controversy,but the conclusion it seeks to achieve.For instance, the world does not need a darwin to explain the process that takes place in the womb of a mother. That is something that occurs naturally.The evolutionary steps is on a very small scale and does not go beyond its own genetic limits and become a different specie. Darwins theory seems to rely on 'genetic mutations' to make their point of large scale evolutionary changes. But, for a rat to become an elephant a new genetic information must be added, so it must come from somewhere.Genetic mutations are not going to provide it, cos when mutations occur genetic code infos are lost and not added.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7414.msg98056#msg98056 date=1228740673]
So I am hoping any of our scientifically better informed members would care to comment ..
Our learned members are quite so as always while the cat is away,the mouse has the chance to play until the cats meaw back.
You can not believe in both Christianity and Darwins theory of Evolution,when the claim is that,for example, humans evolved from apes (this would mean,there was an ape before Adam).You can not serve two masters at the same time.The farce theory of Evolution is the religion of the atheists ,their way of explaining how life exists without a Creator. The problem with Darwinians is that they tell us cats can become Tigers, rats can morph into crocodiles or that reptiles fly one day as birds. There is no scientific evidence for such drastic changes of species.A dog will always remain a dog,no matter how often or agressively one breeds it.The breeding may only result in a wide variations of dogs, but of the same species.
It is not the argument of the theory that is at the centre of controversy,but the conclusion it seeks to achieve.For instance, the world does not need a darwin to explain the process that takes place in the womb of a mother. That is something that occurs naturally.The evolutionary steps is on a very small scale and does not go beyond its own genetic limits and become a different specie. Darwins theory seems to rely on 'genetic mutations' to make their point of large scale evolutionary changes. But, for a rat to become an elephant a new genetic information must be added, so it must come from somewhere.Genetic mutations are not going to provide it, cos when mutations occur genetic code infos are lost and not added.
Just clarifying I didn't say you could believe in christianity and Darwin's evolution theory, I said microevolution within species, I heard this in a sermon, not saying it's definitly correct, just saying what I heard from a coptic orthodox priest
Secondly, I'm pretty sure that I learned that all humans have within them the genetic code for all stages of evolution, and what you're saying now contradicts that...
The teacher backed it up by claiming that some abnormalities that may occur with some humans would be caused by the fact that some of this normally deactivitad genetic code would be activated (by mistake) and thus causing this
I know you have scientific knowledge, and I don't, so I'm just asking for clarification...
Thanks in advance
God bless you
Please pray for my weakness
Second, Darwin's theory is contradictory to Christianity, not because of his scientific explanation of variation and mutation, but because in the Descent of Man he clearly stated that his theory was intended to replace the notion that God created man. Darwin intended to use his ideas as a substitute for what he felt to be a flawed belief in God.
In Christ,
Taio
The tailbone is different. That bone is the attachment point for many muscles necessary for important functions, such as defecating and urinating. It also holds muscles in our thighs and some along our spine. So, it is not a vestigial organ.
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7414.msg98056#msg98056 date=1228740673]
So I am hoping any of our scientifically better informed members would care to comment ..
You can not believe in both Christianity and Darwins theory of Evolution,when the claim is that, for example, humans evolved from apes (this would mean,there was an ape before Adam).
I disagree with that, the apes did exist before Adam, God created all the animals and finally us. The Genesis account does actually record what the fossil record confirms, that animals started in the sea, then grew gradually more complex, finally resulting in humans. I don't think the Genesis creation story is clear enough for us to fully discount evolution, in fact, certain aspects of it actually support it. I don't see a conflict hetween evolution and Christianity.
Evolution has a tonne of holes, but the fact remains that it is the best scientific theory we have today to explain how life got to the level of complexity its at today. Of course, that could change tomorrow, people thought the world was flat 500 years ago. In the end, no-one can say with absolute certainty how life began and how it became so complex. However I think evolution has a lot of evidence going for it, personally I believe for the most part it is correct, but its not the whole story. I think there had to be other forces at work, natural or not.
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=7414.msg98105#msg98105 date=1228874661]
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7414.msg98056#msg98056 date=1228740673]
So I am hoping any of our scientifically better informed members would care to comment ..
You can not believe in both Christianity and Darwins theory of Evolution,when the claim is that, for example, humans evolved from apes (this would mean,there was an ape before Adam).
I disagree with that, the apes did exist before Adam, God created all the animals and finally us. The Genesis account does actually record what the fossil record confirms, that animals started in the sea, then grew gradually more complex, finally resulting in humans. I don't think the Genesis creation story is clear enough for us to fully discount evolution, in fact, certain aspects of it actually support it. I don't see a conflict hetween evolution and Christianity.
Evolution has a tonne of holes, but the fact remains that it is the best scientific theory we have today to explain how life got to the level of complexity its at today. Of course, that could change tomorrow, people thought the world was flat 500 years ago. In the end, no-one can say with absolute certainty how life began and how it became so complex. However I think evolution has a lot of evidence going for it, personally I believe for the most part it is correct, but its not the whole story. I think there had to be other forces at work, natural or not.
So are you saying that Genesis proves evolution?
So all we know for sure is that animals began simple and got more complex, fossils show us that, Genesis tells us that. The real question is, how? I don't know. Maybe it was God, maybe it was purely natural. Maybe God let evolution do it for Him as part of the corruption that entered the world after the fall? Who knows. I certainly don't. My point is, evolution and Christianity aren't polar opposites, its only atheist's who try to use evolution as evidence that God doesn't exist, and they do so falsely.
No not at all. Genesis is way too vague for us to be able to say that for sure. But its far from impossible. The fact is, animals started in the sea, got more complex as time went on and finally ended up with what we have today. That's an undisputed fact. The fossils are there for anyone who doubts that. And that's what Genesis records, in a slightly muddled order but the majority of it is consistent with what we know about fossils.
So all we know for sure is that animals began simple and got more complex, fossils show us that, Genesis tells us that. The real question is, how? I don't know. Maybe it was God, maybe it was purely natural. Maybe God let evolution do it for Him as part of the corruption that entered the world after the fall? Who knows. I certainly don't. My point is, evolution and Christianity aren't polar opposites, its only atheist's who try to use evolution as evidence that God doesn't exist, and they do so falsely.
Genesis cannot agree with evolution for one main reason; According to the Holy Bible, Death entered into the world through the envy of the devil i.e. sin. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death"
If however we believe the theory of evolution then we should believe that death is simply a tool in the hands of natural selection. It is simply a means of killing off the weaker species so that the stronger ones can survive.
See the contradiction? Death didn't come about through sin but simply because natural selection needs to kill off some species.
As has been stated before, God created each animal ACCORDING TO ITS KIND!!!
Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
Everything after their kind, birds were brids not fish! The fish were after their kind, then God created the fowl (birds) after his kind. There is no inter-mingling of species here!
Same thing again in Genesis 1:24-25 "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
It says "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind" then to clarify it goes into details, cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earh, AFTER HIS KIND!!
Nothing vague about that! God created all the animals as they are, NOT one common ancestor then eventually the diversity of animals we have now!
Sorry if I've come off sounding rude, but contrary to the popular trend, the theory of evolution and Christianity are not the best of friends. The theory of evolution is not infallible, its a THEORY for a reason. In the beginning of the 20th century the vast majority of scientists believed in the steady-state theory, that the universe has always been as is. Then when evidence for the big-bang became more apparent, scientists (especially those who were evolutionists) fought vehemently against it because it seemed to provide evidence that there really might be a God who created everything! Just in case you were'nt aware, biology is HEAVILY influenced by evolutionary thinking; they take the theory of evolution as a fact and try to prove it using the most random and absurd things ever heard of, rather than as a theory and examine it and see if it is capable of standing on its own two legs!
There are tonnes of scientific books that go into a lot of detail examining the thoery of evolution, a really good one many of you have probably heard of is 'The Case for Creation' by Lee Strobel. It's a good book by itself and it also has a dozen other books recommended within it which are even more detailed.
See the contradiction? Death didn't come about through sin but simply because natural selection needs to kill off some species.
I have to disagree there. The wages of sin is definitely not a physical death, its a spiritual one. Sin is the opposite of physical death, its physical life and fulfilment more often than not. This removes the contradiction.
"And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good."
Notice the peculiar way that's worded, "Let the earth bring forth"? That would suggest that the earth itself brought forth life, like it was a sort of 'life factory' that God designed to bring forth life. That's consistent with the theory of evolution. And again, the order is more or less correct. Fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. I don't see how 'according to its kind' says anything about evolution. If each species evolved into the other, then each one would have come into its own, 'according to its kind'.
[quote author=danny_iki link=topic=7414.msg98235#msg98235 date=1229056064]
Nothing vague about that! God created all the animals as they are, NOT one common ancestor then eventually the diversity of animals we have now!
But what makes you say that? Genesis doesn't say how things happened, just that they did. It tells us what animals showed up, but it doesn't say how specifically. God didn't write Genesis, Moses did, and Moses was not writing a scientific account of what happened. Take for example, the first verse, which says that God 'created the heavens and the earth.' If you take that literally, its false, God didn't create the earth, dust and gas collected together, drawn in by the force of gravity, and grew gradually larger until it formed the earth. So specifically, God didn't create the Earth, nature did. That suggests that God uses nature as a tool, that the universe and laws of nature themselves are designed so that within the universe, a planet like ours capable of supporting life would form. If you apply the same principle to life on Earth, its not far-fetched that the entirety of life on earth became what it is today without God's conscious intervention.
Does that make God incompetent? NO!!! It makes Him a genius! All He had to do was create one atom sized particle which was so perfectly designed that the second it was set off, it would grow into the massive, incredibly complex universe that we see around us.
I agree with most of what you've said though, there is a scary amount of bias in the modern scientific community, and it shows. We also have to be aware though that the opponents of evolution are just as biased as its supporters. The theory of evolution itself is not atheistic, its atheists themselves who use it as a weapon against theism and that argument is false. If evolution is true, it denotes an incredible amount of fine tuning in the universe and supports that idea that this entire universe was 'built' to produce life.
So essentially, the idea of evolution is proven in the book of Genesis, but Darwin's theory is incorrect both scientifically and Biblically?
I would be careful using the word 'proven', I would say that evolution doesn't conflict with the Biblical creation account and leave it at that.
Darwin's theory is definitely scientifically correct, there are many things that it can't explain, but for the most part, the evidence does point toward it holding a large degree of truth. In terms of the Bible, Darwin's theory is merely not contradictory. Its not correct or incorrect, it just doesn't clash.
ENai-Nai wrote: Nai_nai, I did not say that Adam and Eve were created before God created animals.What I said was, that the theory of evolution tells us that Adam was not created but evolved from apes. Such type of evolution is not OK with christianity.Maybe the type of evolution that is sound with the christian faith is 'developmental Biology', which is a some call evolution ,but that is not what the Darwinians are talking about. They only have a theory that says, reptiles can become birds or that ants can change into elephants. These are all based on assumptions and nothing else. At the end of the day, assumptions remains only that - assumptions. You said that the theory of evolution has holes. I agree that it has huge holes,nothing but holes after holes and that my friend is not Ok with christianity.
Godislove, you found something wrong with the following: I do not see anything wrong with the above points.You say that "especially in Biology, every human being has within him the genetic code for all stages of evolution, but most of it is deactivated". I am not sure in what ways this point finds faults with the above argument. You speak of "microevolution" which I understand to mean changes on a very small scale within a population. I call that developmental biology, the study of how a multicellular organism develops from its early forms into an adult,the type of evoltion in the womb that you said Darwin described.
When you say that most of ther 'genetic code remains deactivated', I am not certain if I understand what you are trying to say.But I think you are talking about Mendels laws.If my guess is right, let me give you an example of 'microevolution', that occurs naturally and has nothing to do with Darwin's Mumbo jumbo.
Godislove, by her own admission, loves "arguments". Let me take the hilarious 'flying dutch man', -Hos Erof as a partner for you both speak Dutch :-). Let me assume, that Hos Erof also has the gene for ARGUMENTS,but is no fan of 'arguments'.
Let’s say that within your DNA there is both a gene for ARGUMENT -A- and a gene for LESS ARGUMENT -a-. Also, imagine that you possess both genes which is -Aa-. Now the Lord said, multiply ,be fruitful and fill the earth.The blessed offsprings that result from The combination of Aa x Aa would yield four possible outcomes of cute flying dutch babies: AA, Aa, aA and aa .
According to Mendels law, let’s suppose that the ARGUMENT -A- gene is the dominant gene and the LESS ARGUMENT- a- gene is the recessive gene. That means that when your DNA genome contains both genes, only the ARGUMENT -A- gene will appear, i.e., the babies will all be ARGUMENTATIVE- with a ratio of 3:1.
This also means that 2 individuals who contain the gene for ARGUMENT will have 1 baby -aa- that is LESS ARGUMENTATIVE .Such outcome perfectly describes an example of 'microevolution' ,that is a change within a population on a small scale taking place as a result of re-arranged genes that always existed within that same population.
But what happened to the alternative characteristics - the gene for LESS ARGUMENT- that had been passed on so faithfully for generations by your ancestors? Why is it so underrepresented or unexpressed? I think,that is what you mean by 'gene deactivation'.
In order to find out what happens with those genes, you only need to cross those who carry the gene for ARGUMENT the -'Aa'- with the ones that carry the 'aa'.The characteristics that did not appear or were not expressed in your babies would re-appear in the 2nd generation boldly. These characteristics were not 'deactivated 'but were present in your babies too, but they were not apparent there.
On the other hand,when mutations occur, genetic infos are lost and the result could be cancer, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome etc etc.The idea that grand scale evolution arises as a result of genetic mutations is farce. For example, to use the above example,let' assume that within the ARGUMENT -A- babies population a genetic mutation occurs and destroys the expression of the ARGUMENT -A- gene, the result would be that the ARGUMNETATIVE babies would all become LESS ARGUMENTATIVE over the years but remain human babies , simply cos some genetic info is lost as a result of mutation.
Godislove wrote: Sorry, I was replying to both you and Ep-nai-nai and the above line was meant for him for he finds no faults with the theory of evolution and the teachings of the bible.
ENai-Nai wrote: Nai_nai, I did not say that Adam and Eve were created before God created animals.What I said was, that the theory of evolution tells us that Adam was not created but evolved from apes. Such type of evolution is not OK with christianity.Maybe the type of evolution that is sound with the christian faith is 'developmental Biology', which is a some call evolution ,but that is not what the Darwinians are talking about. They only have a theory that says, reptiles can become birds or that ants can change into elephants. These are all based on assumptions and nothing else. At the end of the day, assumptions remains only that - assumptions. You said that the theory of evolution has holes. I agree that it has huge holes,nothing but holes after holes and that my friend is not Ok with christianity.
Godislove, you found something wrong with the following: I do not see anything wrong with the above points.You say that "especially in Biology, every human being has within him the genetic code for all stages of evolution, but most of it is deactivated". I am not sure in what ways this point finds faults with the above argument. You speak of "microevolution" which I understand to mean changes on a very small scale within a population. I call that developmental biology, the study of how a multicellular organism develops from its early forms into an adult,the type of evoltion in the womb that you said Darwin described.
When you say that most of ther 'genetic code remains deactivated', I am not certain if I understand what you are trying to say.But I think you are talking about Mendels laws.If my guess is right, let me give you an example of 'microevolution', that occurs naturally and has nothing to do with Darwin's Mumbo jumbo.
Godislove, by her own admission, loves "arguments". Let me take the hilarious 'flying dutch man', -Hos Erof as a partner for you both speak Dutch :-). Let me assume, that Hos Erof also has the gene for ARGUMENTS,but is no fan of 'arguments'.
Let’s say that within your DNA there is both a gene for ARGUMENT -A- and a gene for LESS ARGUMENT -a-. Also, imagine that you possess both genes which is -Aa-. Now the Lord said, multiply ,be fruitful and fill the earth.The blessed offsprings that result from The combination of Aa x Aa would yield four possible outcomes of cute flying dutch babies: AA, Aa, aA and aa .
According to Mendels law, let’s suppose that the ARGUMENT -A- gene is the dominant gene and the LESS ARGUMENT- a- gene is the recessive gene. That means that when your DNA genome contains both genes, only the ARGUMENT -A- gene will appear, i.e., the babies will all be ARGUMENTATIVE- with a ratio of 3:1.
This also means that 2 individuals who contain the gene for ARGUMENT will have 1 baby -aa- that is LESS ARGUMENTATIVE .Such outcome perfectly describes an example of 'microevolution' ,that is a change within a population on a small scale taking place as a result of re-arranged genes that always existed within that same population.
But what happened to the alternative characteristics - the gene for LESS ARGUMENT- that had been passed on so faithfully for generations by your ancestors? Why is it so underrepresented or unexpressed? I think,that is what you mean by 'gene deactivation'.
In order to find out what happens with those genes, you only need to cross those who carry the gene for ARGUMENT the -'Aa'- with the ones that carry the 'aa'.The characteristics that did not appear or were not expressed in your babies would re-appear in the 2nd generation boldly. These characteristics were not 'deactivated 'but were present in your babies too, but they were not apparent there.
On the other hand,when mutations occur, genetic infos are lost and the result could be cancer, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome etc etc.The idea that grand scale evolution arises as a result of genetic mutations is farce. For example, to use the above example,let' assume that within the ARGUMENT -A- babies population a genetic mutation occurs and destroys the expression of the ARGUMENT -A- gene, the result would be that the ARGUMNETATIVE babies would all become LESS ARGUMENTATIVE over the years but remain human babies , simply cos some genetic info is lost as a result of mutation.
I do know about Mendel's law (by the way very original way of explaining it lol), but that's not what I was referring to. As you know, Hezekiel, my field of study now is completely far from the scientific field, yet as my interests are very broad and varied. I do remember some things from biology as it was one of my favourite subjects in high school, although the info might not be entirely correct or detailed any more. What I do remember well is that while the teacher was explaining Darwin's theory, he specifically said that all genetic code from all stages of evolution can be found within the human cell. He used this to prove the evolution theory (NOT microevolution), although he had clearly stated beforehand that the theory has many holes in it and that there are people in the scientific community who don't agree with it, although just a minority.
So I think this is very puzzling, if this was true, then how would it get there besides by evolution? I hope I made myself clearer this time and am waiting for a witty and original response by a scientist.. :p
[quote author=danny_iki link=topic=7414.msg98235#msg98235 date=1229056064]
See the contradiction? Death didn't come about through sin but simply because natural selection needs to kill off some species.
I have to disagree there. The wages of sin is definitely not a physical death, its a spiritual one. Sin is the opposite of physical death, its physical life and fulfilment more often than not. This removes the contradiction.
"And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good."
Notice the peculiar way that's worded, "Let the earth bring forth"? That would suggest that the earth itself brought forth life, like it was a sort of 'life factory' that God designed to bring forth life. That's consistent with the theory of evolution. And again, the order is more or less correct. Fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, humans. I don't see how 'according to its kind' says anything about evolution. If each species evolved into the other, then each one would have come into its own, 'according to its kind'.
[quote author=danny_iki link=topic=7414.msg98235#msg98235 date=1229056064]
Nothing vague about that! God created all the animals as they are, NOT one common ancestor then eventually the diversity of animals we have now!
But what makes you say that? Genesis doesn't say how things happened, just that they did. It tells us what animals showed up, but it doesn't say how specifically. God didn't write Genesis, Moses did, and Moses was not writing a scientific account of what happened. Take for example, the first verse, which says that God 'created the heavens and the earth.' If you take that literally, its false, God didn't create the earth, dust and gas collected together, drawn in by the force of gravity, and grew gradually larger until it formed the earth. So specifically, God didn't create the Earth, nature did. That suggests that God uses nature as a tool, that the universe and laws of nature themselves are designed so that within the universe, a planet like ours capable of supporting life would form. If you apply the same principle to life on Earth, its not far-fetched that the entirety of life on earth became what it is today without God's conscious intervention.
Does that make God incompetent? NO!!! It makes Him a genius! All He had to do was create one atom sized particle which was so perfectly designed that the second it was set off, it would grow into the massive, incredibly complex universe that we see around us.
I agree with most of what you've said though, there is a scary amount of bias in the modern scientific community, and it shows. We also have to be aware though that the opponents of evolution are just as biased as its supporters. The theory of evolution itself is not atheistic, its atheists themselves who use it as a weapon against theism and that argument is false. If evolution is true, it denotes an incredible amount of fine tuning in the universe and supports that idea that this entire universe was 'built' to produce life.
Epchoic nai nan, I agree with the arguments concerning the animals coming first and then humans, and that being consistant with the Bible, I might even agree that when God said let the earth bring forth it meant let the complicated machine that is nature bring forth animals.
The problem with evolution theory is that Adam comes forth like the rest of the animals. There is no distinction between his beginnings and that of any other species.
While in the Bible it clearly states that God took dust from the earth and breathed in it, this is inconsistent with the evolution theory. For even if animals and birds came along by evolution, Adam can't have, since he was especially created by God with His breath... also it clearly states that only then did Adam become a living being, thus he wasn't alive before that in the form of an ape or any other animal...
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (genesis 2:7)
God bless you
Please pray for my weakness