Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
click here to read article
Those that do not believe in evolution, do not believe in God.
When the evolutionists explain how the universe evolved then we can pay attention to them.
"Believers...believe in Him...don't hang on language...hang on His Spirit...He is Big...
and He loves you...and that is the thing that is so great for you and me...He loves us (don't sweat the details...He is in control).
Biological evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or its subsiquent evolution. That is the field of cosmology, astronomy and physics.
Sure we can. The people who argue against science misinterpret the Bible.
Right you are, brother.
God bless you, man. Keep up the good work...Jon
I don't know what god you acknowledge, but it certainly is not the same one that Christians recognize.
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Notice that it says "days", not "billions of years".
Evolution claims that history was drenched in blood from claw and tooth for thousands and tens of thousands of years prior to the arrival of man. Since the gospel message is based on the fundamental belief that it was Adam's sin that introduced death to the creation, how do you harmonize evolution's death and misery with (Genesis 1:31) "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Yom is the Hebrew word for day. If you will look at the first several verses of Genesis 2 you will find the key to translating the meaning of yom in Genesis 1 (The first several verses of 2 are a continuation of Genesis 1. The chapters were done without regard to completed passages.
It is clear that yom means an indefinite period of time. This is in conformance for God's using evolution to provide a changing life to a changing environment.
With all due respect, you have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of Hebrew grammar. You may be able to find a dictionary a cherry pick a definition from it, but that is a common fraud that evolutionists use to bully creationists.
Any time "yom" is used with a number, it always means a regular day. Anytime "yom" is used in conjuction with the word "morning", it means a regular day. Everytime "yom" is used in relation to "evening" it means a regular day. So can you take a wild guess as to what rule of grammar applies when the word "yom" appears with (1) a number, (2) morning and (3) evening as it repeatedly does in Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy?
Also, it appears that you are unwilling to answer the doctrinal question regarding the appearance of death in the Creation in relation to Adam. Your original post was quite insulting and immflamatory in that you categorically called Christians who reject atheistic evolution as unbelievers. Yet you can't seem to grasp how evolution attacks the very core of the gospel message.
Another question for you, not doctrinal, but indicative of your attitude towards the veracity of the Scriptures: Given that the Global Flood is described in the Genesis narrative, and the flood is declared by God to be sent to destroy all "that breathes" (save those aboard the ark), wouldn't that same catastrophy also destroy all of that so-called evidence prior to the antediluvians?
Take your time... :)
1 posted on 11/30/2004 4:53:55 PM MST by shubi
To understand G-d and Genesis as science try reading :
by GERALD SCHROEDER Ph. D.
His willing bondslave
That exodus quote did not mention the creation of life - only "heaven and earth, the sea..." and then the nebulous "all that in them is". That does not rule out life coming about via evolution. Is there a passage that specifies creation of all plants, animals, fungi, etc?
I think it is also noteworthy that the Bible says God created people from clay - and recent hypotheses regarding the formation of the first organic compounds and forerunners of the first single-celled life forms is centered around the quantity of exposed clay in the Earth's early years and the qualities of clay that would enable it to be a catalyst for synthesis of those substances.
There are a lot of amazing truths revealed in the Hebrew of Genesis 1, if you go deeply into the Hebrew and apply it to modern science. Let there be light is quite equivalent to E=mc2. By the first act of making "light" or primordial energy all matter could have been made.
Taken this way, the Bible supports the Big Bang hypothesis.
Well there of course is the Genesis narrative that provides better detail. Yet I am stumped in trying to guess how you interpret the phrase in Exodus 20 "...and all that is in them..." to somehow exclude life. What else could it possibly be?
The reason I chose the Exodus passage is that I know many people have rationalized away Genesis, as you are trying to rationalize away this one too. Many people say something like "God is big enough to use evolution" but refuse to acknowledge that the same God is also big enough to do so in an instant or in six literal days. There is reason for all of Creation being six literal days, and that is why I posted the Exodus passage. For those who claim to be Christians and deny six literal days are the same people who will deny the Sabbath which is one of the Top Ten commandments, for the Sabbath has its foundation in the six day Creation.
I think it is also noteworthy that the Bible says God created people from clay
Why stop there? Have evolutionists explained abiogenesis or the transformation of inorganic material into organic material? In order to be scientific, making life out of non-life must be demonstrated, otherwise the claim that life came from non-life via an "accident" is nothing but religious ramblings and speculation. The Goo to You Theorists must make many miraculous claims in their attempt to deny the miracle of Creation. Its clearly a rejection of one religion for the adoption of another. What is shameful is that the Johnny-come-lately worshippers of the House of Chance arrogantly state that their Science that is not science proves the existance of the god of Chance. All it really proves is that they have a particular dogmatic bias in the examination of evidence.
Considering your butchering of it as the only example, your claim is as comical as all of the other provocative statements made so far in this thread. As an aside, I am always curious as to why those who believe in a day-age theory demand that "yom", in this context, can only be understood in an age sense, but never in a regular day sense.
The whole point of this thread is there is nothing about science or evolution that attacks God.
Clever yet deceptive how you bundle "science" and "evolution" as if they are the same. True science does not attack God since the founders of much of our scientific theory were believers in God and in Creation.
You are treading in the waters of blasphemy when you state that there is nothing about evolution that attacks God. Don't you remember the Scopes "Monkey" trial? Are you so uninformed about the debate that you ignore the fact that evolution was invented purely as a way to remove God from the culture? Evolution is the antithesis of Creation and is the primary religion of Hell that removes the Creator and replaces Him with Chance.
But since you claim that science is working here, then perhaps you can explain how plants, which require C02 and sunlight in order to survive (we will ignore symbiotic relationships with critters for pollination for the moment) were able to do so without the sun. In the narrative, plants appeared on day three and the sun appeared on day four. According to your calculus, that would mean that in total darkness and temperatures approaching absolute zero, plants were thriving and reproducing for "billions of years" until the sun and its energy finally showed up.
The "whole point of the thread" has been a showcase of lies on your part, especially when you open up with the outrageous and highly offensive lie "Those who don't believe in evolution don't beleive in God". Since evolution has its own origins in the nineteenth century, it follows that you condemn all of humanity before Darwin to Hell on the basis of your own confusion.
Furthermore, I have been patient in giving you ample opportunity to add meat to the bones of your statements. Rather, after telling everyone who doesn't suck-up to atheistic evolution that they are going to Hell you come out and deny the Scriptures as Truth. This is what makes your opening statement even more ironic. You reject Scriptures, call God a liar, embrace atheistic evolution, then call those who believe Scripture, love God, reject pagan explanations of origins as those who "don't believe in God".
I think the Adam and Eve story is almost completely a story about the Spirit and not about physical life and death.
Of course you would. Because if you believed it to be true then it would confirm the Gospel and condemn secular human achievement to vanity. But riddle me this, we have something called a geneology. Most people skip over it because it is boring, but it is there for a reason. It provides a chain of men to link with history. Now since you reject Adam and Eve and I am guessing the first few thousand years of human existance as "a story" rather than history, can you point out in the geneology exactly where history ends and allegory begins?
I know, I know, you will blow off this question too because you would rather blindly believe athiests and God haters rather than think for yourself.
For the atheist, the simple yet difficult scientific phenomena to explain is the difference between the universal Scientific God, entropy, vs. the Earthly natural Scientific God, evolution. Remember entropy, the force behind the big bang and the awesome power of the universe, predicts systems should evolve from a state of order to disorder. Evolution, observed on the planet Earth, predicts systems are evolving from a state of disorder to order. If the scientific God is all that is and ever was, it has the same level of confusion and identity as the Democratic Party.
Clever yet deceptive how you bundle "science" and "evolution" as if they are the same. True science does not attack God since the founders of much of our scientific theory were believers in God and in Creation
17 posted on 12/01/2004 6:45:07 AM MST by Reuben Hick
Evolution is a hypothetical construct for which there is no corroborating data.
A course in the "Philosophy of Science" will show that evolution is not science but a construct without proof.
i.e. evolution is a religion with less proof than the Bible.
His willing bondslave
sWhat are your credentials in Hebrew? I am quite accomplished at it.
rConsidering your butchering of it as the only example, your claim is as comical as all of the other provocative statements made so far in this thread. As an aside, I am always curious as to why those who believe in a day-age theory demand that "yom", in this context, can only be understood in an age sense, but never in a regular day sense.
How do you know I butchered it? You just don't want to accept the truth. You think that your limited knowledge of Hebrew, which I suspect is zero, allows you to know what yom means in Genesis? The reason you must accept the indefinite period translation is because if you don't Genesis does not comport with reality. Therefore you are denying the truth of God using evolution to create different forms of life on Earth over long periods of time.
There are several other technical reasons why yom cannot be day in Genesis 1, but I am not going to waste my time enlightening you, as you seem more intent on insult and ridicule instead of education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.