Skip to comments.Is evolution fact?
Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "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" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful The Lord God made them all. Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
You’re confusing Christianity with a fundamentalist, literal reading of the Bible. It is entirely consistent with Christianity that God chose evolution, or something similar, as his creation method. Did God create man? Sure. How did he do it? We don’t know, but He gave us the brains to figure it out. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.
Oh, and there is absolutely no physical evidence of young-earth creation, but the evidence for the alternative abounds.
IMHO, there are many aspects of Gap Theory, which are consistent with ancient history, Euhemerism, and Scriptural timelines, however, the same might be said for many heresies.
Insofar as one interprets the Gap theory based upon Scripture, there may be some sound conclusions, but one has to be careful not to begin interpreting Scripture based upon Gap Theory. Many aspects of it are extrabiblical and some devious systems might be involved either in its formation, or how it begins to lead us to think.
Here is another interesting position. Since the fallen angels are associated with the 1/3 who followed the Adversary, and the remainder are associated as ‘elect angels’, perhaps all angels sinned and 2/3s were also saved, hence elect. Nothing is written in Scripture, that I am aware of, to suggest the elect angels had sinned, but then again, there is a class of angels who are not fallen, but described as “elect”. What are they ‘elect’ from?
There is absolutely no physical evidence of young-earth creation, but evidence for the alternative abounds.
By this I mean would it not make sense for the survival of all species that they be dependent upon themselves for reproduction.
How and why did nature decide that it would or could take the chance for two to reproduce? This seems to be quite risk for a organism to survive.
Ping to post 132
But when the poster turns to an individual Freeper and makes that kind of remark about him - e.g. you only say [blah] because [whatever.] - it is personal and therefore, not allowed even on "open" threads.
You can always count on Elsie to Scripture references to anything.
As far as the Gap theory, what I’ve been told by someone who knows Hebrew is that there is a change in tense between the first two verses in Genesis. The first verse is that the universe was created, as in the creation of something new.
The second verse indicates a remaking of the earth, making it habitable for humans and life. Apparently the verb means that the earth became formless and void. The thinking is that there is no knowing what the time frame is between the first and second verses.
Not knowing Hebrew myself, I honestly have never investigated that.
Other people disagree with that interpretation.
The thing that makes it all so difficult is that there are Bible scholars who take both positions and present good cases for their side.
Because I'm stubborn and independent minded.
Heck, I was able to resist the public school system and homeschool the kids when homeschooling wasn't very popular.
I've had practice.
This is the verse my friend says some speculate is what happened between verses 1 & 2 of Genesis 1.
Atheism, scientism and agnostism is somewhat tolerated on the Religion Forum. After all, they are the primary audience for many preachers, priests and missionaries who post here.
However, this is a Religion Forum and if the moderators conclude the sum of a poster's posting history is to defeat religion per se he may be declared a troll and banished from the RF altogether. It has happened before and can happen again.
Variation within species is entirely consistent with God's creation and method of propagation of the species.
The problem is when the natural variation we see is extrapolated into species to species evolution, whether you call it speciation, or macro-evolution.
God goes to the trouble of explaining to us that the different groups of animals were created in different creation events, that man was created from the dust of the earth and that woman was created from man's rib. He makes the effort to tell us as much as possible, (and reasonable) so that we can be sure that not only did He do the creating, but that he did NOT evolve us from another creature.
But taking the same challenge to the same poster from thread to thread without provocation is clearly making it personal and a flame war. That is not tolerable even on "open" threads in the Religion Forum.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“God goes to the trouble of explaining to us that the different groups of animals were created in different creation events, that man was created from the dust of the earth and that woman was created from man’s rib. He makes the effort to tell us as much as possible, (and reasonable) so that we can be sure that not only did He do the creating, but that he did NOT evolve us from another creature.”
I said that evolution is entirely consistent with Christianity, not with a literal reading of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is factual, word-for-word, then you cannot accept anything else. It’s also not science. In my opinion, God would be sorely disappointed if we didn’t use the minds that he gave us to understand his process.
Thanks for the ping!
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear Cvengr!
I don’t know about the young earth thing...but I do know about the massive holes in evolution theory.
Sure there are holes. Are you suggesting that there are no holes in the biblical account of creation?
Show your NON-verses to prove it.