Evolution

[Siloam]

Evolution directly against special creation of Adam and Eve!

What makes man special is that God chose man from the moment of creation, not any special merit of Man other than the facilities God placed within His creation to enable Man to perform his tasks.

Man was chosen even before Adam to be God's agent within creation including being the vessel to hold the Christ.

This is true regardless of the manner God employed in man's creation.

 

[YeshuaFan]

What makes man special is that God chose man from the moment of creation, not any special merit of Man other than the facilities God placed within His creation to enable Man to perform his tasks.

Man was chosen even before Adam to be God's agent within creation including being the vessel to hold the Christ.

This is true regardless of the manner God employed in man's creation.

Evolution would deny that God made Adam and Eve special! As their parents would have been apes....

 

[CPerkins]

What fascinates me the most about those that assert evolution was the process whereby life came into being, is that indirectly they are claiming that

nature is by far smarter than man. Nature is able to build complex and varied life forms, but man has struggled for decades to produce life from anything

that doesn't already have life or perhaps formerly had life. Nature is supposed to have done it from basically nothing and by trial and error systematically

somehow preserving the strong and culling the weak.

 

[Siloam]

What fascinates me the most about those that assert evolution was the process whereby life came into being, is that indirectly they are claiming that

nature is by far smarter than man. Nature is able to build complex and varied life forms, but man has struggled for decades to produce life from anything

that doesn't already have life or perhaps formerly had life. Nature is supposed to have done it from basically nothing and by trial and error systematically

somehow preserving the strong and culling the weak.

Many paleontologists are not believers, but many do believe in God and His Christ.

Don't be distracted by assuming that descriptions that do not acknowledge God written by unbelievers represent the only views.

The believer knows that nature is a manefestation of God's love and we are to learn about Him by studying His creation.

This neither argues for or against evolution, but by studying His creation we learn about Him.

Too much in creation witnesses a very old universe with an old earth to dismiss His evidence, along with traces of life developing over an extended period of time, culminating in us.

As students, we should not enter His classroom of nature assuming that we already know what is true.

 

[CPerkins]

Fascinating to hear the arguments for an old earth. There is much to show a young earth as well. Regardless it fascinates me how adamant some can get on both sides. I tend to believe in a young earth and do not believe in evolution. There is so much more involved in the process than what men can discover with just their physical senses and many assumptions.

 

[Lanolin]

I'm going for a middle-aged earth.
Showing signs of decline, but still acting a bit teenagerish.

 

[CPerkins]

I'm going for a middle-aged earth.
Showing signs of decline, but still acting a bit teenagerish.

This conversation is evolving as well. Perhaps it will take on a life of its own.

 

[Major]

Fascinating to hear the arguments for an old earth. There is much to show a young earth as well. Regardless it fascinates me how adamant some can get on both sides. I tend to believe in a young earth and do not believe in evolution. There is so much more involved in the process than what men can discover with just their physical senses and many assumptions.

Personally.......since IMO the age of Creation is very ambiguous at best, I do not care.

If God thought it was important for us to know then we would have known because He would have told us.

To me, whether or not Creation is 6000, or 10,000 years old or 25 Billion, when you get to the beginning......There is God waiting on us and says.....
What took you so long??????

 

[CPerkins]

Personally.......since IMO the age of Creation is very ambiguous at best, I do not care.

If God thought it was important for us to know then we would have known because He would have told us.

To me, whether or not Creation is 6000, or 10,000 years old or 25 Billion, when you get to the beginning......There is God waiting on us and says.....
What took you so long??????

Amen to that.

I have my opinions on the matter, but that is all they can be. God doesn't make it clear nor does it affect God's plan of Salvation as you say.

Science fascinates me in what man can know and what they think they know. There are a lot of assumptions, theories and speculations. Sometimes understanding is built on these things. Basic assumptions when they fail can tear the whole structure down.

 

[rtm3039]

Amen to that.

I have my opinions on the matter, but that is all they can be. God doesn't make it clear nor does it affect God's plan of Salvation as you say.

Science fascinates me in what man can know and what they think they know. There are a lot of assumptions, theories and speculations. Sometimes understanding is built on these things. Basic assumptions when they fail can tear the whole structure down.

Major and I have had very interesting discussions on this subject. I agree. I do believe that God tells us what we NEED to know not all there IS TO KNOW. I am good with that.

rtm

 

[YeshuaFan]

Personally.......since IMO the age of Creation is very ambiguous at best, I do not care.

If God thought it was important for us to know then we would have known because He would have told us.

To me, whether or not Creation is 6000, or 10,000 years old or 25 Billion, when you get to the beginning......There is God waiting on us and says.....
What took you so long??????

Think tose needing old age need it for their Theistic Evolution!

 

[CPerkins]

Think tose needing old age need it for their Theistic Evolution!

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say.

Do some here believe it is necessary that the earth is old? I don't know, obviously some believe that earth has been around much longer than 6,000 years.

I had to look up "theistic evolution." Nothing in the definition seemed to make it necessary in any spiritual way that I could discern. It also notes that there is a wide range of views covered by this term.

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

 

[rtm3039]

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say.

Do some here believe it is necessary that the earth is old? I don't know, obviously some believe that earth has been around much longer than 6,000 years.

I had to look up "theistic evolution." Nothing in the definition seemed to make it necessary in any spiritual way that I could discern. It also notes that there is a wide range of views covered by this term.

Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

"Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science."

This would be my interpretation of the meaning.

rtm

 

[CPerkins]

"Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science."

This would be my interpretation of the meaning.

rtm

Thanks, so many concepts can be misinterpreted if we don't go back to the definitions. It is easy to assume that all understand. Each has a unique background though we share many common experiences. Our belief in God though, does tie us together.

 

[Lanolin]

I think its because they want to keep their jobs? Some fields in science are very insistent that the earth is billions of years old, and if you say anything different you won't get a star rating in your peer reviewed scientific journal. I think earth i.e. rocks could be old or young it doesn't matter as rocks aren't really pertaining to life.

The oldest LIVING things are actually trees, the oldest estimated to be a bristlecone pine called Methusaleh in the US which is about 4,852 years old. That's some tree.

 

[rtm3039]

I believe in science; however, my opinion is that the science does not conflict with God or His Word.

Rtm

 

[Major]

Think tose needing old age need it for their Theistic Evolution!

You might want to think that one through. I do not grasp your meaning.

Without a doubt......Young Earth vs. Old Earth beginning is the most contested conversation in Chritianity.

In 1650, the Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher estimated that the Earth was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. Ussher’s work continues to be cited by creationists as evidence that the Earth is only 6000 thousand years old. For some reason that position still stands today in light of all the science that disputes it.

Now since then science, through Radio graphing, and DNA, and Carbon dating has shown that the 6000 year old theory is scientifically impossible.

Now we as believers can only respond by saying that "ALL the Science is wrong". That places all of us in an untenable position.

Or we can say that ALL the bones dug up of animals are "Fabricated" to confuse Christians to doubt their faith.

Or we can accept brother Ussher which means that T-Rex and Adam lived together.

As A young man many years ago I just could not accept that Adam and Eve lived along side of a T-Rex but that is the ONLY answer I could come up with.

That then means ALL of the Science that dates dinosaur bones as "Millions" of years old are wrong. However, there are the bones of those animals which if the Earth is 6000 years old then those animals were on the earth with Adam and Eve.

Problem with that is that there is NO mention of anything like that in the Scriptures.

Second, IF they were present in Genesis why didn't Noah have any of them on the Ark?

 

[YeshuaFan]

You might want to think that one through. I do not grasp your meaning.

Without a doubt......Young Earth vs. Old Earth beginning is the most contested conversation in Chritianity.

In 1650, the Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher estimated that the Earth was created on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. Ussher’s work continues to be cited by creationists as evidence that the Earth is only 6000 thousand years old. For some reason that position still stands today in light of all the science that disputes it.

Now since then science, through Radio graphing, and DNA, and Carbon dating has shown that the 6000 year old theory is scientifically impossible.

Now we as believers can only respond by saying that "ALL the Science is wrong". That places all of us in an untenable position.

Or we can say that ALL the bones dug up of animals are "Fabricated" to confuse Christians to doubt their faith.

Or we can accept brother Ussher which means that T-Rex and Adam lived together.

As A young man many years ago I just could not accept that Adam and Eve lived along side of a T-Rex but that is the ONLY answer I could come up with.

That then means ALL of the Science that dates dinosaur bones as "Millions" of years old are wrong. However, there are the bones of those animals which if the Earth is 6000 years old then those animals were on the earth with Adam and Eve.

Problem with that is that there is NO mention of anything like that in the Scriptures.

Second, IF they were present in Genesis why didn't Noah have any of them on the Ark?

The majority of dinosaurs were small as a chicken though, and Noah could take the infants aboard no problem. I do not hold to strict 6000 years, but do not thing science will support millions, much less bill;ions of years!
Thesitic evolution requires extreme dating in order to have the evolutionary process, as they deny God doing immediate creation of species....

 

[rtm3039]

The majority of dinosaurs were small as a chicken though, and Noah could take the infants aboard no problem. I do not hold to strict 6000 years, but do not thing science will support millions, much less bill;ions of years!
Thesitic evolution requires extreme dating in order to have the evolutionary process, as they deny God doing immediate creation of species....

I would argue that maybe the definition of "immediate creation" needs to be relooked at. In present times, we see evidence of evolution in our own bodies. We no longer need the following: 1 The Appendix. 2 Wisdom Teeth. 3 Body Hair, 4 Tailbone, 5 Male nipples, 6 Third Eyelid (Plica semilunaris). To me, the complexity of life (to include its evolution) is the greatest evidence of Devine design.

If the Bible went about explaining every single detail, it would take a medium size donkey to carry it around. We get what we need and the rest has to wait. To be seasonal, take Joseph as an example. He was Jesus's "stepdad," yet God saw no need to let us know what became of him. Is that important (yes); is it needed (obviously not).

rtm

 

[Lanolin]

I don't think the age of the earth is the most contested thing in Christianity.

I think speaking in tongues is most contested because when people don't understand or misinterpret what others are saying they complain the most. When the Bible got translated into other languages people complained too. Then they even complain and contest over which is the best translation.

It seems everyone has to have a bee in their bonnet about SOMETHING lol.