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

Evolution Is Proved Wrong

Romans 5:12 proves evolution wrong. If sin and death entered through one man, Adam, then death did not exist before Adam. This tosses out Evolution for good.

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---Kentucky_Ken on 8/27/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (12)

Post a New Blog



One thing i think is crazy is that there are millions of starving and hurting people in the world and no one cares. There are people dying and going to hell and we sit on web sites in America in our comfort. Woe unto us who have been given much and waste it on silliness like a dead theory invented by the devil called evolution.
---John_Doe on 12/12/11


It is true that we all define the sunrise and sunset at a particular point on the earth, as our day, but since nearer the North Pole the winter is night for six months and the day is daylight for six months, we need to get over this idea that the sun was the decisive factor to God's idea that a day is 24 hours. It was already decided from the foundation of the earth, as everything was. The sun was made to light the daytime and the moon to light the night-time. You need to recall that God has hindsight. He can second guess Himself, if that is the expression.
---frances008 on 10/24/08


jerry6593:

Right. Now please explain to me how you get "a day is 24 hours long" from that verse.

I had already pointed out such verses in Genesis, but they hinge on the definitions of "morning" and "evening", which would also require definitions. These are based on "sunrise" and "sunset", but you CAN'T use them during the first 3 days, since there was no sun at that time to rise or set.
---StrongAxe on 10/23/08


Axey: Gen 1:5 .... And the evening and the morning were the first day.
---jerry6593 on 10/23/08


jerry6593:

Please cite chapter and verse on "biblical definition of day", 2 Peter 3:8 is not too helpful.

Otherwise, you are relying on COMMON SENSE: 1) 24 hours, 2) light and darkness, 3) between sunsets (and there was no sun in days 1-3)

I did NOT say "a day is 24 hours" is wrong. I DID say such a definition relies on EXTRA-BIBLICAL scientific definitions, and if you reject ALL extra-biblical science, you also unermine your own argument.

Also, while the moon's slows the earth slightly, it does not do so much - the earth would not have been spinning "impossibly fast" (even now we can see distant stars that do complete revolutions in minutes, or even seconds).
---StrongAxe on 10/22/08




Axey: It is you who just proved my point! The definition of "day" is the same now as it was at creation - the inclusive temporal period of light and dark on planet earth. (The same period, incidentally, as on the first four days of creation - "The evening and the morning were the first day," etc.)

You correctly point out that the earth's rotation is slowing. But, the biblical definition of "evening + morning" still holds. The earth slows due to (mainly) the moon's effect on earth tidal forces. The moon is also receeding from the earth. The combination of these two effects would have made the earth's spin rate impossibly large billions of years ago. You just proved a young earth! Thanks.
---jerry6593 on 10/22/08


"You can't support the Bible and reject science on one hand, and then use that same science to support your biblical argument."

Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous a lot of these arguments are. So many people do this by rejecting things about science they don't agree with, but then have no issues using part of science they don't disagree with.

...Except it's all science! You either have to reject its methods entirely or accept that the methods stand up within their own framework.

Sorry, that last part was sort of off-topic. :)
---liam on 10/21/08


jerry6593:

You just proved my point. Note that you are NOT relying on a "biblical definition of a day". You are, instead, taking a modern technological device (a watch), and using SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTATION to measure the length of a day. You can't support the Bible and reject science on one hand, and then use that same science to support your biblical argument.

Also, if you have a REALLY accurate watch (accurate to fractions of a second), you would observe that the legth of the day has been very gradually growing longer as time as time goes by, so the length of our day now could be seconds longer than the length of the day in biblical times. Not much, but still not exactly the same.
---StrongAxe on 10/21/08


Axey: Was there a point in there somewhere? Get a watch. Note the time at which sunset occurs. Wait for the sun to set the next day. Note the time again. I'll bet you get pretty close to 24 hours. That's the length of a day - just as it was in biblical times.
---jerry6593 on 10/21/08


jerry6593:

Yes, but what, exactly, is the "biblical definition" of "a day"? It can't be "24 hours", since that phrase occurs nowhere in the Bible. Days in Genesis, are in the form "And the evening and the morning were the nth day." This agrees with Jewish tradition (days begin and end at sunset). But this relies on "evening" and "morning" and "sunrise" and "sunset", that all rely on "sun".

Unfortunately, according to Gen 1:14-19, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. So how were days defined before then? Genesis must obviously have been referring to some other form of time measurement than the conventional ones.
---StrongAxe on 10/20/08




Mikie: Great to see you're still with us!

You said: "After 5 years of college and ten years of field work there is no much I don't know. I do not life did not come from nothing," Apparently, you missed a few things in English class!

You also don't know much about the Bible:
"NO ONE has shown me how the Bible conflicts with evolution." Evolution theory requires millions of years to gradually produce the things we see on earth. The Bible says:

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is

Pretty big conflict, I'd say!

And no, "days" (Heb. yom) does not mean millions of years. It means just what it says - DAYS.
---jerry6593 on 10/19/08


Janice:

You find it inconcievable that God could create man by way of animals, because:
- we have a soul (and animals don't)
- we can determine good from bad (and animals can't)
- we have the ability to appreciate beauty (and animals don't)
- We are made in God's image (but animals aren't)

Yet you have no problem believing that God can create man man out of dust, yet:
- we have a soul (and dust doesn't)
- we can determine good from bad (and dust can't)
- we have the ability to appreciate beauty (and dust doesn't)
- We are made in God's image (but dust isn't)

Why is one believable while the other isn't?
---StrongAxe on 10/17/08


Scientific knowledge is based on what God allowed us to be presented with during our stay here on earth. I don't believe science can ever definitively answere our questions. We are curious so we keep striving to unlock all the secrets. It gives us comfort to believe that we understand something so mysterious as God and his creations. I don't think the concept eveolution is completly crazy, I just think we can never fully understand the golry of how God works. Pondering such things is what gets us into trouble, and leads to more questions.
---Thea5336 on 10/17/08


I personally (from a theological view) think that it is not right to assume God used evolution. In the Creation story, the creation of man is so detailed, special that God would not have made man out of an animal.
Besides, God made us in his image, which means we a separated from animals:
- we have a soul
- we can determine good from bad
- we have the ability to appreciate beauty
Therefore evolution does not correspond with the Creation story- they ARE mutually exclusive.
---Janice on 10/16/08


Deceived by the design. Worship of creation over the Creator.
Isaiah 14
---Bob on 11/9/07


Kelly, A Very intelligent response. The rejection of evolution or any natural selection is a rejection of onjective physical reality. Those who do so are animated by simple viseral emotions.

After 5 years of college and ten years of field work there is no much I don't know. I do not life did not come from nothing, this is ontologically impossible. NO ONE has shown me how the Bible conflicts with evolution.
---MikeM on 11/9/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive. How can any of you say that God isn't behind the notion of evolution?

Have any of you taken a course in anthropology, biology, etc.? The idea of evolution has a lot of evidence behind it.

I myself am Christian, and I also believe in evolution. These two powers are not mutually exclusive, and saying evolution can't exist seems to downplay the work of God and His abilities, if you ask me.
---Kelly on 11/9/07


Have any of you actually taken college courses on Anthropology, Biology, etc.?

It's really naive to think that God and evolution can't co-exist, if anything you're downplaying God's actual power. These two powers aren't mutually exclusive.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I myself am a Christian who also believes in the power of evolution. I see no reason why God could have no part in evolution.
---Kelly on 11/9/07


you guys cant just be saying that evolution never happend sure the bible tells us that God created us in his own image but the problem there is that females and males have different features so how can God have made us in his image unless you wont to say that females are not people or say that males are not people God cant be both its just not possible he would have to be male female or some totaly different thing for all you know God has no form and if that were true then we were not made in his image
---random_guy on 9/12/07


I think Genesis 1:27 does it for me...
"So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
I don't think G-d was ever slime.
---Amy9384 on 6/20/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Now I'm hating evolutionism; it's no wonder why there are so many holes in there. What if the modern whale and the supposedly "primitive" whales are really cousins. Actually there are more like siblings! Well, it's a good thing all what God's Word is true. And if evolution existed but it doesn't exist after all!
---CNoEvil on 9/26/06


MikeM: I'll take that as an "I don't know and I want to bail." You can't answer the most basic questions about the "Origin of the Species" because Darwinism has no answers; it only has childish conjecture, wild speculation and an aire of pseudo-scientific superiority to hide behind.
---jerry6593 on 9/7/06


This is the answer that is most consistant here, 1."Evolution not true because is is not true."

2. If you are presented objective evidence of evolution, see rule 1., then bail....
---MikeM on 9/6/06


Before we know it scientists will be telling God, "look, we have figured out how to create life from the dust of the earth!"
...of course God's response would be, "ok, now let me see you create the dust."
---tofurabby on 9/5/06


Send a Free Romance Ecard


Johan, The Gap Theory and Evolution are not the same so please dont lump them together. The Gap Theory does not support evolution. It is an idea that human "like" people existed on earth long ago who were created like we were, lived, sinned and died like we do. No evolution between us and them, they went extinct. Death by sin was brought into our world (age, eon) just like it happened in theirs.
---tofurabby on 9/5/06


Mr. MikeM: (Note how formal we are.) I have just stepped out from behind my wall of smugness. Hit me with the answer to my very simple 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?" Hint: "I don't know" is also an answer.
---jerry6593 on 9/5/06


Johan you are correct man was here not before 6,000 years and eath about 10,000 years toops science cannot get it right but Bible is always right. MikeM has not a clue only books and bones
---Kentucky_Ken on 9/4/06


No death before the Fall? Welll there had hardly been time, had there?
Are you sure there was not physical death before the Fall? Maybe the Death that came with the Fall was Spiritual Death.
After all, now we have Christ, we are not afraid of physical death, but only of Spiritual Death.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/4/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


If the evolution was a tool for God. This would mean that death came before sin. This is not what the bible says. There for evolution/GAP theory is wrong.
---Johan on 9/3/06


Evolution of whales, at least a partial list,Pakicetus,Ambulocetus,Artiocetus,Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Eurhinodelphis; Mammalodon

The morphology is very clear, they are not seperate species. in northwest Nevada two full Eurhinodelphis were removed last year, (I dont think other websites are allowed to be posted here. years ago. Without offering a pedantic morphological discription it is clear they the chain, in this instance is mostly complete.
---MikeM on 9/3/06


simple ATP ADP process it is known rotating magnetic fields recondition (alter) DNA molecules structures, Once the DNA has been conditioned by rotating magnetic fields, the cells reproduce accordenly. This is basic newtonian randomness; thats the point, randomness. I suspect no matter the answer Mr Jerry will hide behind a wall of smugness and repeat the question, proffering an aura of credibility, to him.
---MikeM on 9/3/06


MikeM: I agree with you regarding the sorry state of our educational system - up through university level. Gravity, however is no longer a theory. It has been tested, and is now a Law. Natural Selection has also been tested and has been found to be incapable of crossing the species barrier. It has been relegated to the trash heap of discarded hypotheses. When will you answer my simple question? "In the origin of life, which came first, the DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism?"
---jerry6593 on 9/2/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Amy; Early man fossils, Australopithecus and others were discovered with DEVICES like shovels, brushed off with DEVICES like brushes, studied with DEVICES like microspectrometers, yet-and this may be a suprise- its a real fact that no rhetorical DEVICE will make them disappear.
---MikeM on 9/2/06


man was created from the dust of the earth. In the Hebrew this is a reference to clay, the type of clay used to make pottery. The same type of reference found in the Book of Job. Man forms works of art from His hands, likewise God formed man like a potter. This is metaphor. I still see no conflict between evolution and scripture.
---MikeM on 9/2/06


One blogger says no 'fossil history' another blogger says says no fossils OR dna exists, another says natural selection is a theory (gravity is a theory).

This blogger wonders what is happening to the educational system in America.
---MikeM on 9/2/06


ps. "bring forth" and "turned into" are completely different.

If I asked you to bring forth a soda from the refridgerator, I wouldnt go telling people it turned into a soda from a carrot stick.
---tofurabby on 9/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Jack, the water brought forth the creatures that move in water (eg. whales) and apparently every winged foul. Land creatures (eg. cattle), on the other hand, were brought forth from the earth. The biggest thing was the human, which was created from dust and breath of life.
---tofurabby on 9/1/06


**
Actually, Genesis 1:1 of the Holy Scriptures proves evolution is a lie: "In the beginning God created..." Nope, no evolution there.**

Genesis 1 clearly describes an orderly process of development from simple to more complex forms, which is what evolution really means.

God did not say, "Let there be living creatures," but "Let the sea bring forth living creatures".

I have no trouble with the theory that evolution is the mechanism God used.
---Jack on 9/1/06


**Mitochondrial DNA does not exist, has never been extracted from Neanderthals,**

There may not be any recoverable mitochondrial DNA in fossils, but mitochondria do exist in living cells in just about every species, and it contains its own DNA, so mitochondrial DNA does exist.
---Jack on 9/1/06


Mike M: Why are you afraid to answer this one simple question IN your field of expertise? "In the origin of life, which came first, the DNA code or the code-decyphering mechanism?
---jerry6593 on 9/1/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Jerry fails to mention that Romans 1:20-22 and a few other scriptures was used by the Pope to try to nail Galilio. Same such verses were used against Newton, Kepler and so many others, nails Darwinists? hardly, no more than it nailed anyone else in history, sorry Charley, er, Jerry. Early man fossils to fundamentalist are like kryptonite to superman.Somebody hit their hand with a hammer.

Tbabe; I will trade in the word 'bail' for 'Throwel in the towel."
---MikeM on 9/1/06


MikeM, There is no fossil history to show the different stages of the ape people you are trying to convince us once existed. You are just angry about my fertilizer comment. LOL
---Amy9384 on 8/31/06


being a christian I believe God made all things.now science is the study of our natural enviroment, there are amny fields, but they are study, a learning process to ascertain proovable natural facts.And as with many things many are mere theory. There was a time when evolution was called the THEORY OF EVOLUTUION but as with all natural things and people, many take theories as fact,and many more include facts into theory that are not proved.the ego of man is very large,and the curiosity even larger
---tom2 on 8/31/06


Pharisee I agree with you and would like Phil to "exegesis" Rom 5:12. It is one thing to say someone is "incredibility deficient" but another to show where.
The Gen 1:1-2 gap is another theory that "just isn't there" and cannot be proved but only speculated.
Pharisee you asked Phil a question and Jack answered. Are we now finding Phil and Jack to be the same person?
---Elder on 8/31/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Too many want to compromise with the world. The Bible says what it says, Man said/God said. Through Adam sin, death entered world so no death before Adam, about 6000bc. Man and his science tries to disprove God with faulty reasoning. Fossils are faked all the time this is proven neandthals are deformed men. dna is only a theory formed by atheest.
---Kentucky_Ken on 8/31/06


AMY says there is no such thing as fossil history. Yes, i have heard this before. In orange county Ca. There is a group of fundamentalist that wants all early man fossils destroyed. I guess geology does not exist.( can I post their site?) they say fossils must have all been invented by evil scientist. I have no doubt once they burned, destroyed fossils lots of books would be burned, then people......
---MikeM on 8/31/06


AMY;There is no fossil history? I see. We then need to shut down all universities, colleges, as palentology, archeology, biology, and a host of other sciences do not exist. I have seen, 'touched' fossils of neanderthals. Mitochondrial DNA does not exist, has never been extracted from Neanderthals, no. Austripithicus, and others don't exist, that extra large cranium, must be a deformity, sorry twwo more have been found. The forces of ignorance and intelligence do contend with each other.
---MikeM on 8/31/06


Actually, Genesis 1:1 of the Holy Scriptures proves evolution is a lie: "In the beginning God created..." Nope, no evolution there.
---Eloy on 8/31/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


This is a frivolous debate. We don't know what really happened even 500 years ago let alone what happened at the creation. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast two weeks ago. Well known scientists are on both side of the debates. Who can you really believe? Besides, people shouldn't care except what is happening today and how to put on the armor of God to protect you during the coming tribulation - a time like no other in history.
---Steveng on 8/30/06


**My Christian, responsibility is in training and correcting errant notions. It that implicitly clear now!!!**

Or as I put it for myself: comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
---Jack on 8/30/06


Pharisee, where did you come up with the idea that that I am involved in shepherding, My Christian, responsibility is in training and correcting errant notions. It that implicitly clear now!!!
---Phil_the_Elder on 8/30/06


greetings ,is paul saying that sin is transferable causing everyone to die and sin before death because of a man long ago started sinning?did not one writer speak extensively about(sinning) "sour grapes"?isn't the comparrison interesting?thanks
---earl on 8/30/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


"And what is the destiny of the sheep?
To be fleeced, milked, and ultimately slaughtered, sacrificed, and eaten"- You forgot to be turned into a very good fertilizer! The missing fossil history is the proof!
---Amy9384 on 8/29/06


**What is a shepherd except one who leads the sheep to a rich plot of ground upon which to graze? Thoughtful, caring, service is the mark.**

And what is the destiny of the sheep?

To be fleeced, milked, and ultimately slaughtered, sacrificed, and eaten.
---Jack on 8/29/06


Kentucky_Ken, Romans 5:12 has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Your ability at Biblical exegesis is incredibility deficient. You are attempting to read thing into the meaning of the text that simply is not there.
---Phil_the_Elder (Vote) on 8/28/06

Where's the inspired topical commentary?
---Pharisee on 8/29/06


If it must be so...

Phil your lack of compassion twoard those who don't understand shows that you have become high minded and puffed up.

What is a shepherd except one who leads the sheep to a rich plot of ground upon which to graze? Thoughtful, caring, service is the mark.

Your answer sent him away insulted and empty handed. That is nothing like the way an "ELDER" should behave.
I don't even know why I wrote this, you've already justified yourself in your address to me.
---Pharisee on 8/29/06


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


MikeM,

**Donna's and Amy reaction are typical.** (How typical of you to say that.)
Donna and Amy's reactions may be typical, but they're also RIGHT!

**Only one branch of Christians that see conflict between science/evolution and scripture.**
Only one (very large) branch of Christians sees conflict between EVOLUTION and Scripture.

The whole "bailing" thing is quite redundant. (Yawn)

This is all I'm going to say on this one.
---Tbabe on 8/29/06


** There is no fossil history. The pictures of the apes hunched are only pictures. The real proof is missing in the fossil history.**
If there is no fossil history, how can anything be missing from it?
---Jack on 8/29/06


Gen. 1:24 is the creation of land animals and it says the earth brought them forth, not water... verse 20 was the creation of water animals and airborn animals. Then later on we find man being created from the earth as well. Not evolved from.
---tofurabby on 8/29/06


Pharisee, why argue with Jack about me, Kentucky_Ken made a ridiculous assumption about scripture and I justly called him on it; as I would do to any one else who did so. I am not here to be peoples friend, I am here to provide factual information on Blog Topics I find worthy of commentary. So if you want to throw virtual rocks; throw them at me.
---Phil_the_Elder on 8/29/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


K Ken: Romans 1:20-22 nails Darwinists. "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
---jerry6593 on 8/29/06


There is no fossil history. The pictures of the apes hunched are only pictures. The real proof is missing in the fossil history. Reality shows facts. The missing links do not exist except in the imagination of evolutionists. Read the latest on Lucy or the Neanderthal man. or check out way of the master.com
---Amy9384 on 8/29/06


It is written, seek and you will find. Much seeking is done through questioning, and this is an idea I personally have not heard before, but provokes some thought.
---Christina on 8/29/06


MikeM..."there is no such thing as objectivity, only feelings to confirm truth." Feelings do not matter in facts. And FAITH does matter... I have the FAITH that God tells me and you and everyone the TRUTH. What purpose would it fill to LIE? God cannot lie. He approved the message written.
---Amy9384 on 8/28/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


MikeM...If you want more here it is. There is NO proof of evolution because there are NOT different stages of human life forms. The Ape Woman they found in Africa was pulled from 2 or more sites and pieced together. There are no apes turning into men today or even changing slightly. Why don't we see living organisms growing new body parts and changing in other ways in nature today?
---Amy9384 on 8/28/06


** 1. Only one branch of Christians that see conflict between science/evolution and scripture.**

What does evolution mean but an orderly process of development from simpler to more complex forms?

Is this not what Genesis 1 describes?

Consider: Does Genesis 1:20 say, "Let there be living creatures," or "Let the waters bring forth...." (Perfectly coinciding with the theory that life originated in the sea.)
---Jack on 8/28/06


Get off my back Jack.

There's no reason to tear someone down because their understanding is less than ours.

Wouldn't it have better if Phil might have just said, 'it's clear you don't understand, but here's how I see it?'

There was no reason to put the guy down and discourage him from writing another question and maybe growing a little more from the answers.

Why would you defend this?
---Pharisee on 8/28/06


Romans 5:12 is a poor example to dismiss evolution. After all, Satan did sin before Adam. Ez. 28:16 "...and thou hast sinned..."

Google search "christian geology" and go to the first site that comes up for an extensive study that could shed some light on how the Bible and science can coexist in harmony. It does not agree with evolution, but has alternate explanations that corroborate science.
---tofurabby on 8/28/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


Jack, you said: "Christ's resurrection proves that the death of the body isn't fatal."

I love that statement. Very nicely said.
---tofurabby on 8/28/06


1. Only one branch of Christians that see conflict between science/evolution and scripture.
2.Donna's and Amy reaction are typical. " A priori"-rendering ALL objective evidence irrelevant, therefore, there is no such thing as objectivity, only feelings to confirm truth.
3. Bailing; The objection is emotive, a fear science renders man a product of randomness, this could not be further from the truth. Evolution is a poor argument for atheism.
---MikeM on 8/28/06


**Phil but what was the point of your comment?**
The point was obvious. To say that Romans 5:12 disproves evolution is an example of prooftexting at its worst, and eisegesis (reading into a passage, as opposed to exegesis or derving from a passage) on top of it.
(My remarks are not to be interpreted as saying anything about evolution at all, but what I also believe is a misuse of a Bible verse.)
---Jack on 8/28/06


Phil but what was the point of your comment?

1Co 12:23 And those of the body we think to be less honorable, to these we put more abundant honor around them. And our unpresentable members have more abundant propriety.
1Co 12:24 But our presentable members have no need. But God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member having need,
1Co 12:25 that there not be division in the body, but that the members might have the same care for one another.
---Pharisee on 8/28/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


Kentucky_Ken, Romans 5:12 has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Your ability at Biblical exegesis is incredibility deficient. You are attempting to read thing into the meaning of the text that simply is not there.
---Phil_the_Elder on 8/28/06


What is your question? In the beginning, GOD. That's my definition of evoluation. Man came up with the idea of evolution. God's word says, He created man in HIS image, no in the image of an animal, nor a monkey, nor an ape, nor a gorilla, etc.,
---Donna9759 on 8/28/06


Your conclusion is a beautiful analytical teaching.
---mima on 8/28/06


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