ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Biblical Evolution Exists

Can the Bible and evolution both be true?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---TheologyStudent on 8/4/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Post a New Blog

No. One is true and the other is lie.
---Eloy on 1/3/08

God is true.He said in the begaining that things would come after its kind,and everything that creepeth on the ground after its kind.etc.But not that one species
come from another.As apes and humankind.
SO LETS PUT THE ENDS TOGETHER.God said it first that one thing would come after the other in all life and existence.
Humankind took the wrong road.
---Jack_8773 on 1/2/08

"The DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism" 1. I am no atheist. The mechanisms are too complex for here, but I will try.

"Evolution is a naturalistic theory proposed to replace the creator God, needing nothing Supernatural" Nonsence! Science has nothing to do with theology, pro or con.

As to time of creation, its His call, not mine.

Warwicks last statement is a trite rhetorical statement of no meaning.
---MikeM on 1/2/08

Jerry you asked MikeM "In the origin of life, which came first, the DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism?" I think he bailed Jerry!

Evolution is a naturalistic theory proposed to replace the creator God, needing nothing Supernatural.

God is intrinsically supernatural & all powerfull(Jer. 32:27). Why would such a God need vast periods of time to 'create'?

As the man said 'there's no Bible in evolution, nor any evolution in the Bible.
---Warwick on 1/2/08

For Everyone,
Here's a couple more excellent resource on the topic of Creation vs. Evolution: Google search "Creation Evolution Headlines" and "Scientific Facts in the Bible sbea"
---Tbabe on 1/1/08

jerry6593, Yea, you're right and they smell better too.
---Elder on 9/27/06

Okeb: Go to the head of the class!
Elder: Your Methane Theory of Origins is agrees substantially with the Flatulent Giant Racoon Theory posited by Ann Coulter in her book "Godless - The Church of Liberalism." Any of these theories is equally as plausible as those advanced by modern academia.
---jerry6593 on 9/27/06

if you are christian who reads the bible you will know thetwo dont work hand in hand. Even the author knows
---ZIMBABWEAN on 9/26/06

Mikie; Good to see you're still alive. I must have missed the polystrate tree explanation; I'll bet it was good. Sometimes your meaning becomes lost in the profusion of words. When will you answer my question "In the origin of life, which came first, the DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism?"
---jerry6593 on 9/26/06

jerry6593 are you sure those miracles are not from Bubba eating so fast.
You know Methane gas is very explosive in these events.
I am writing my Doctorate Thesis on the Effects of Methane Gas on the future of Bubba consumption in open air. These personal theroies are presented as fact like the other things here.
Methane - meth - CH4 is a colorless, flammable, nontoxic gas with a sweet, oil type odor....... This is cause Bubba drives a Ford PU and loves corn, liquid and on the cob.
Cond #2
---Elder on 9/26/06

Cond #2
My estimates of Global Anthropogenic Methane Emissions from the Bubba Factor from the early 1700 to date where CH4 and F are metric tons of methane and carbon in carbon dioxide from flaring, respectively cause coal to burn faster and Mama to send Bubba outside for a while.
I used flaring data for this period from Mama and Papa Bubba and found that Baby Bubba was coming right along with his contributions.
Cond #3
---Elder on 9/26/06

Cond #3
It is my estimate back to early time, using the following formula for each year, t:CH4t = 0.267(0.478-0.0002193t)Ot, that Bubba killed off his share of Dinosaurs using this method, purposely or not.
Don't put this in your pipe and smoke it.
Are we starting a third theory or what?
---Elder on 9/26/06

Good point Jerry, I believe I can explain the answer to your question about the whale's fossil (and there are many more like that): Certainly it wasn't evolution, it was the flood in genesis that formed so many of our landforms only about 4500 years ago; that's how the whale got buried.
---Okebaram on 9/25/06

It's a long story to explain but if you can handle the truth, evolution is really untrue even though it may seem like there are scientific artifacts that point toward the ides...if you understood really what they point to, it will be like an eye-opener. Scientists, unfortunately, have gotten it 100% wrong in this subject. *(You did not evolve from spirogyra)
---Okebaram on 9/25/06

**Literlaism is used, ignored based on wants and needs. 'Do not suffer a witch to live' is ignored, 7 day creation, based on denial calling itself faith- is not.**
Wrong!~ Anyone who has a little discernment is able to read the book of Romans (especially chap. 7) and figure out why we don't kill witches. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with "wants and needs."
BTW, it's a 6 day creation, not 7 (God rested on the 7th day.)
---Tbabe on 9/25/06

I'm very concerned about you Mike M. :-(
Obviously, I DIDN'T answer the whole "suffer a witch to live" thing to your satisfaction on 8/11. Why didn't you say so?
How on earth do you come to the following conclusion?...
---Tbabe on 9/25/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing

talkorigens I find dowen to earth, without resorting to jargonistic lingo. In the final analysis fundamentalism represents a reactionary form of protestantism, a reaction against 1900's 'modernism.' Literlaims requires a denial of reality, a denial of education, and a black/white either/or paradigm. Literlaism is used, ignored based on wants and needs. 'Do not suffer a witch to live' is ignored, 7 day creation, based on denial calling itself faith- is not.
---MikeM on 9/25/06

Tbabe 'Big words" In debate class I learned the 7 classic fallacies of argument, Ad Hominum, non-sequitor, and the other 5. These 7 are spotted in most arguments. As to education, I am from a blue coller background, respecting the working man as americas backbone. Many educated, especially in social science academia live in ivory towers. Both groups, the soundly ignorant and the intellectual elite are repulsive to me. I make a point of giving credit for intelligence to everyone (except when driving)
---MikeM on 9/25/06

Polystrate tree have been fully explained, but that is of no relevance to fundamentalist. Fundamentalst look to anomiolies, which always exist, rhetoric and emotion to support their views, not objective reality. Where I work is a evangalical. He has no problem with natural selection, but to a fundamentalist he would be apostate, ruined by education. Literalism DEMANDS a denial of objective reality-not to be confused with facts.
---MikeM on 9/25/06

Elder: Good point! But Bubba would have had that possum down in a half-hour. The 100 K year whale is nothing compared to the polystrate trees that penetrate millions-of-year-old layers; And all without the slightest sign of rot. But then again, evolution is full of miracles.
---jerry6593 on 9/25/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance

2)...I went to 'talkorigins' and couldn't understand much of the scientific jargon, I did notice that there's quite a bit of advice on how to debate creationists, I also found another place that I was far more impressed with...Google True.Origin Archive. There's a lot of links and info., and even a glossary that defines many of the big words used here; such as non-sequitur, and ad hominem.
---Tbabe on 9/24/06

1)...Thank-you for the example of the transitional fossils...
Although I do believe in my heart that the Bible is true (literally), that's not why this jury member has been holding out...I'm not convinced that you've shown sufficient, much less "massive" evidence to support the case for evolution.
For example, from what I've read, the "evolution of whales" transitional fossils, are disputable on many levels.
---Tbabe on 9/24/06

Excellent Jerry, now that makes sense (and all in less than 85 words!) That's what I'm talkin' about!

Hi there Elder :-) It's good to see a reply of yours here again; it's been a while. I see you're getting to be quite the comedian; especially on the "end-time spinach" blogs. heh heh
---Tbabe on 9/24/06

Was there also a Timex with the day and date dial found in that "thick diatomaceous earth deposit?"
Yo.....Takes a whale of a lickin' and keeps on tickn'.
Ya would kinda think after the first 20,000 years or so an Algae eater would'a ate that whale like Bubba on a Possum.
---Elder on 9/23/06

Send a Free Valentine's Day Ecard

MikeM: Speaking of whales: There is a thick diatomacious earth deposit in Texas dated as over 100 K years old, wherein was found a 100 ft. long whale, standing on his nose, with his tail straight up. Can you explain how he manageg to stand on his nose for 100 K years while the DE deposit slowly filled in around him?
---jerry6593 on 9/23/06

Mike M,
**I'm not assuming that you'll listen to me**
Oops, I meant to put that one on the "Baptist, Catholic Or Pentecostal" blog...sry
---Tbabe on 9/22/06

**Our textbooks are full of such scientific fraud, in spite of state laws that prohibit fraudulent material in them.** Yes, it is a "sign of the times" isn't it?

This all reminds me of Romans 1:17-32.
---Tbabe on 9/21/06

I also like your replies... Unlike me, you're able to bring your point across effectively without writing a book.
Re: "evolution facts"
Yeah, I see what you mean...There's a lot more out there than just "Answers in Genesis" isn't there?
There's an article that I found, written by Dr. Don Boys, that I like...Google "Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith"
---Tbabe on 9/21/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money

Mike M,
I'm not assuming that you'll listen to me any more than anyone else, but please pray and ask God to reveal the truth to you, and please listen to Him. I'm praying for you as well.
---Tbabe on 9/21/06

Tbabe; Note you are the only one still 'debating' all others have bailed.
I note your posts are philosophical, science is empirical.
On another site I debate AGAINST atheist, using an ontological argument.
If I were an atheist, I would use history, specifically history of religion as an argument. Most atheist use history, as evolution is an irrelevant issue to faith/religion; except to the minority known as literalist.
---MikeM on 9/21/06

Here is just one line. The Evolution of whales (transitional fossils)
Also a 'non-pedantic' down to earth site is talkorigens
---MikeM on 9/21/06

Tbabe: I continue to enjoy your entries. For a quick study on the errors of Darwinism, search "evolution-facts" on the net. 100% of all transitional life forms touted by evolutionists have subsequently been found to be fraudlent. Our textbooks are full of such scientific fraud, in spite of state laws that prohibit fraudulent material in them.
---jerry6593 on 9/19/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments

3)...**if we find out some day that evolution is true.**
Hmm, do you mean that we haven't already found out that evolution is true? What a shock!!
Yes, perhaps "some day" we'll invent a time machine or something.

**Self interest is completely consistent with evolution and in fact makes more sense with evolution than without it.**
Well now, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

2)...Personally, I'm all for people being well educated in science.
"A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back." [Sir Francis Bacon]
As for me, I'm limited to what I can learn on the internet about it. I'm taking care of a large family, and college is not an option for me at the moment. However, I'm still determined to learn as much as I can, however I can.
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

SaultoPaul, (thats a cool name)
1)...**Evolution is a science question not a religous question.**
You're wrong about that; I'm sure the Atheists would have preferred that religious people stay uneducated and kept their "noses" out of science; that way, they could have continued to claim that there is no God, and that science proves it, without anyone raining on their parade of deception. I think I've managed to exemplify this by the quotes I posted earlier.
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

...Anyway, I assume that when you say "evolution" that you are referring to "Macro" evolution as well as "Micro"...I have no problem with "Microevolution." In my replies I'm referring to "Macro" (particles-to-people) evolution. With that said, here goes another lengthy reply. (sry Mod.)
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks

Mike M and SaultoPaul,
First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm not accusing either of you of being Atheists. I just wanted to show the historical connection between Atheism and evolution. Mike, you have made it clear that you believe in God and glorify him as the Creator.
However, I am having trouble understanding how one can embrace both evolution and Christianity...(cont.)
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

...I've become keenly aware that I can not debate with Mike too well on a scientific level, as my knowledge of science would fill a thimble, whereas his would fill a bucket (at least.) I have to rely on reason, common sense, the Bible, and the internet. You should keep asking though, until you get an acceptable reply; it sounds like a good question, and I admire your persistence.
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

I would present your question to MikeM myself, but honestly, even if I could get a reply from him, I dont know if I would be able to decipher it. Ive learned some about "natural selection" but I just simply don't have the time or resources to learn enough about DNA right now...(cont.)
---Tbabe on 9/18/06

5)...**I could list lots of transitional fossils**
Could you list just one or two, preferably ones that are publicized, so that I can verify it via the i-net; even if you can't resist the urge to get pedantic, I promise, I'll try real hard not to bail.
After all, you haven't gotten rid of me so far by getting pedantic, have you? ;)
---Tbabe on 9/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

4)...**Tbabe;where do you get your infromation?**
How many times have I stated "Google search......" or given scripture reference? Many here don't have access to transitional fossils or college level science, but if they're here on CN, obviously they have access to the internet and hopefully they have Bibles. I at least try to provide some kind of information to clarify and expound on what I'm saying.
---Tbabe on 9/17/06

3)...If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!" [Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30]
Want more? Google search "Quotes Regarding Evolution/Creation/ID" click on the first page (Quotes Evolution)
---Tbabe on 9/17/06

2)..."Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus, earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death... (cont.)
---Tbabe on 9/17/06

Mike M,
1)...You're soooo funny!
**What does atheism have to do with evolution**
"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist." [Richard Dawkins, Neo-Darwinian spokesman]
---Tbabe on 9/17/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

Evolution is a science question not a religous question. if we find out some day that evolution is true. It does not change whether we believe in God. Many evolutionists believe in God. I dont see why people get so bent out of shape with evolution. Religious people got bent out of shape when someone said the earth was not the center of the universe. We now know its not. SO WHAT? That's what happens when religious people stick their uneducated noses in science.
---saultopaul on 9/17/06

tbabe, you asked How does evolution account for man's sin nature? That's easy. In order to survive we developed as creatures with self interest. That's what caused sin. Self interest. God teaches us to put others first. that's contrary to self interest. Self interest is completely consistent with evolution and in fact makes more sense with evolution than without it.
---saultopaul on 9/17/06

2)...Read my replies from (9/13/06) on the Evolution And Atheists blog; also, read my reply 4) below (9/16/06.)
There is no conflict between Microevolution and creation, whether one believes in a young or old earth. Ken Hams acknowledgement of this does not, by any means, classify him as an "evolutionist." God created all his creatures with the ability to adapt within each individual "kind" to various environments.
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

Hi Steve,
1)...You have an interesting viewpoint. **Noah took dogs only on the Ark, and they became wolves, foxes, dingos, etc, reproducing after their kind. Sorry that's evolution.**
What Ken Ham is referring to is classified under "Microevolution." No credible scientist, whether for, or against creation, can claim that this doesnt exist, because scientific observation of it is well documented, and it is substantiated.
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

Tbabe: Great job sparring with Mikie (I call him that because he'll swallow anything). Ask him this question that even a novice evolutionary biologist could answer. "In the origin of life, which came first, the DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism?" He has bailed on this one.
---jerry6593 on 9/16/06

Steve, That last post of yours was so profound and articulate that it confounds me.
---MikeM on 9/16/06

Tbabe; What I reminded of here is the fellow on the jury who is confonted with massive evidence on a case by the other 11 jury members in the jury room; He waves his hands and says, "My mind is made up, so dont confuse me with all the facts, I have to vote with whats in my heart." That fellow is the classic fundamentalist. That is what I see over and over again.
---MikeM on 9/16/06

Tbabe;where do you get your infromation? Only microevolution has been confirmed? What the heck is Cosmic-Stellar-Planetary evolution? Never heard is it. Organic, and macro-evolution are merely assumed? Again, sorry, that is a rhetorical statement. Plenty of transitional fossils exist, bio-chemistry and others sciences confirm natural selection. Where do you get this stuff?
---MikeM on 9/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Tbabe; As to 'testing' I could become pedantic again. When I do, here and elsewhere so all quickly bail. Pre-conceived ideas (presuppositions)? No, intense research and cross disaplines are involved, from all the sciences, palentology, geology, bio-chemistry, etc..
---MikeM on 9/16/06

Ybabe; I could list lots of transitional fossils, ones mind? Sorry, whole chains have been confirmed by palentology and micro-biology. (In listing them on other blogs, it was instant bail by all bloggers.)
to say 'created by those who reject God' is an subjective opinion, having nothing to do with objective facts. iD is philosophy. Natural selection is objective science. I have seen, it happens all the time, fundamentalist run from musiums with fossils. Objective reality vs, subjective belief.
---MikeM on 9/16/06

Tbabe says; 'Yes, just as Atheists, etc. have had an agenda to teach evolution theory all along.'-What does atheism have to do with evolution> evolution is a poor argument for atheism. I am no athiest, and no one I know is an atheist. That is a fallacy.
---MikeM on 9/16/06

No Steve that is not evolution, they are all part of the dog family (canine) just as lions, domestic cats, tigers etc. are all of the same family (feline). Adam and Eve are the original human beings, just look at the diversity of humans now, or don't you believe that God made only 2 humans? If you are having problems with any of this why don't you contact Ken Ham yourself, he'd enjoy the challenge.
---f.f. on 9/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Actually Ken Ham, a highly respected young earth Creationist, is unwittingly an evolutionist. He says for example that Noah took dogs only on the Ark, and they became wolves, foxes, dingos, etc, reproducing after their kind. Sorry that's evolution.
I'm an old earth Creationist, former athiest most of my life. I'm NOT an evolutionist.
---Steve on 9/16/06

6)...Anyway, are you ever going to answer my questions 1) and 3) below (posted on 9/6)? If youre not, just say so- its ok.
I have one more question for you: How does evolution account for man's sin nature?
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

5)...Your story about the Merychippus was interesting; isnt it possible, though, that the change is within the species, rather than a change resulting in a completely new species?
What kind of testing was used to determine that whatever change occurred took 11 million years?
Isnt it likely that the scientists, who deemed the Merychippus to be 11 mil. yrs. old, began with certain pre-conceived ideas (presuppositions)?
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

4)...Microevolution (the variations within the kinds) is the ONLY form of evolution (natural selection) that has been observed and documented and the only form that can be in harmony with scripture. All the others; Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar and Planetary, Organic, and MACROevolution are merely assumed.
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

3)...Evidence for "macro" (particles-to-people) evolution exists only in one's mind, because of years of being indoctrinated by those who reject God. BTW, what percentage of your science professors in college could be classified as Atheist, Agnostic, or Secular Humanist?
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

2)...**It does belong in the schools, but in philosophy class, not a science class.**
I understand what you are saying, Mike, however, if Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy class then so does evolution theory.
Ideally, only scientific fact, and well documented evidence would be taught in science class.
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

**Anything from a hindu to a fundamentalist could acept ID.**
Yeah, so...?

**I suspect the agenda is to teach creationism in science classes.**
Yes, just as Atheists, etc. have had an agenda to teach evolution theory all along.
---Tbabe on 9/16/06

I have no use for Pat Robertson or his goofy right-wing politics. Ralph Reed, Falwell, Robertson, American taliban. ID is so vague, but its a foot in the door. I suspect the agenda is to teach creationism in science classes. Any good philosophy professor can teach the philosophy of David Hume, and not a cliche' parody of it, meaning Behe's ID. (Yes, the far left has an agenda as well, and I believe their agenda is a greater threat.)
---MikeM on 9/14/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

The fact that evolutionary theory,(and law) has been usurped by some bad people is as relevant as that Klan members are against gay marrage. If you are against gay marrage, does that means you are pro Klan? Its a classic fallacy.
---MikeM on 9/14/06

Tbabe, Anything from a hindu to a fundamentalist could acept ID. Its a new variation of Humes argument from design. It does belong in the schools, but in philosophy class, not a science class. Beyond that I have no issue with ID, other than to say the ontological argument for God is far stronger, in my opinion.
---MikeM on 9/14/06

9)...Now that weve expressed our opinions regarding TV preachers, I would very much like to get back to the original debate, if you don't mind.
Did you miss 1) and 3) below (posted on 9/6)? You havent given up (bailed) on me regarding these points have you? :-(
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

8)...Back to Pat Robertson...**He once said the Rebublicans were Gods party**
What exactly did he say, 'cause I can't find the quote on that one? Are you sure there wasn't some "spin" put on one of Pat's statements?
Anyhow, Mike, if I wish to debate politics or TV preachers with you further, I'll do it on another blog, ok; don't hold your breath though (wink.)
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

7)...You cant possibly be unaware that evolutionary theory, itself, supports some types of religious beliefs (Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secular Humanism), as well as being ideal for communistic views. Why should children be taught science from only one religious bias...Thats not teaching, but rather INDOCTRINATION! ID is a way to study science objectively without the scientist having to set aside his/her belief in the Creator.
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

6)...I think Pat put it mildly, compared to Paul in Romans 1:28... "And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right," Also read Rom. 1:29-32. Now, thats a curse!
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

5)...The same principal applies to everything that has ever been made, e.g. cars, airplanes, people, earth, the universe, etc., etc., etc.
Furthermore, the way I see it, when there's an "intelligent designer" involved, things don't require billions, millions, or even thousands of years to be designed.
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

Let me put it this way...
Was the building that you live in at some time designed by someone, or did it just begin to exist by itself? If it was indeed "designed," COMMON SENSE tells us that there was a "designer" involved...Let's hope, for your sake, that the "designer" was "intelligent!" (heh heh)
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

4)...Now why would a Christian say such a "goofy" thing? Maybe its because when people reject "intelligent design" they also reject the "Intelligent Designer"!?
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

3)...About Pat Robertson,
**He said God cursed a town for not teaching ID.**
On "The 700 Club" (Thurs., Nov. 10, 2005) Pat Robertson basically told citizens of Dover, PA that by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design," they had rejected God; heres what he said...
"If there is a disaster in your area, dont turn to God:" then he explains, "You just voted God out of your city."
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

2)...I respect your knowledge of science and realize that you have seen things, that in your opinion, confirm evolution, including the ridiculous time periods (although, I don't understand how, without a time machine, these can possibly be observed.) It also appears that you've had a great deal of exposure to an Atheistic slant.
I, myself, find it difficult to keep up with your scientific jargon; therefore, I'm going to approach this from an angle that I'm more familiar with (common sense.)
---Tbabe on 9/13/06

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.