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

Is Evolution A Biblical Concept

Why do some Christians feel the need to include the atheist explanation for creation (Evolution) along with the biblical one in their beliefs?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 1/16/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



Agnostic: To your question "Why the cruel attacks against Alan?"

Alan wrote: "It's clear that the geneology in Geneasiss Gen Chapter 10 & 11 are written as history, an account of what had happened They would not have been written as they are as they events unfolded."

I responded: "You might want to clean that up a little, as it's hard to tell what you you're getting at." and: "Maybe it's just me, but your writing is becoming increasingly less understandable."

He responded: "you look for hidden meanings in everything others write, and seek disagreements."

Now who is being cruel? Did you find his initial "sentence" understandable?
---jerry6593 on 1/24/10


Perhaps some Christians feel that need because they realize that despite the comfort they get and the guidance they find from the Bible, they realize that to take it literally makes them foolish and holds them back from gaining a better understanding of the universe.
---atheist on 1/23/10


Warwick,

The theory of evolution involves gradual genetic change over many generations time, speciation, common ancestry of different species, and the mechanism of natural selection, whereby different combinations of genes are reproduced more successfully than others as a result of the different abilities of individual organisms to survive.

Not something like:

"Evolution says we're getting better 'n' better & are all sufficient within ourselves."

But a reductive description wins arguments for the ill informed. But that's not the issue for you is it? Evolution requires more than 10,000 years, making the bible a story book and not the word of god. That's you problem.
---atheist on 1/23/10


Jerry ... It's a common ploy to resort to insult when you can't agree with someone's point! And to make such play with a typo! I have never pointed out yours!

As to who actually physical inscribed the tablets ... is it really that important. Is it a salvation issue? Perhaps you think it is. Am I unsaved because in passing I suggested that God may have told Moses what to carve, and that Moses could then in honesty say it was written by God?

Incidentally, it is not God who claimed authorship of the 10C, but Moses, when he wrote the history of the event, confirmed the authorship of God, not claiming credit for himself.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/23/10


Words are the elements with which we construct the communication of ideas. They are but imperfect descriptors of what one sees or believes he sees and are used to explain this seeing to others.

So it is with the bible. It is a number of 'books' of words, written, assembled, edited, redacted, translated, and altered for sometimes politcal reasons by men.

The bible is not of 'god' but of men. The finger of 'god' did not literally write the ten commandments, men did, and maybe a guy name Moses wrote them down.

Bad tornadoes are called the 'finger of god', but are not that,---just bad weather.

Jerry, what sore spot is Alan irritating? Why the cruel attacks?
---atheist on 1/23/10




Atheist you wrote "Literal fundatmentalists...bend and restate scientific theories and methods to suit their beliefs."

Three times I asked you to provide specific instances of this but you haven't answered.

Now you write "Please provide the scientists, the name and the publishing journal for your claims. Again, any peer review on this thing?"

You feel free to malign peoples integrity without factual support but expect me to provide factual support!

After you!

You attack the man (fundamentalists)while I point out systemic flaws!

ps If you are prepared to admit you have no investigable factual support for your comment I will happily then provide the necessary support for mine.
---Warwick on 1/23/10


Jerry, I cannot read your mind. I am glad. Second, God is Spirit and has no body parts, so His finger in Exo. 31:18 cannot be refering to a body part. "Written with the finger of God" refers to a figurative way of attributing the law to God. Third, God speaks and those whom He wants to hear, will hear. How He speaks we are not told. In Exo. 24:9,10 we are told 74 people saw Him, we are not told how God manifested Himself. God wrote the tablets because He said He did Exo. 24:12 says "...I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them" We are not told how He wrote them, but we are told He had already written them, before Moses went up the mountain.
---MarkV. on 1/23/10


NO, its not biblical, its unreasonable and impossible. From spontaneous biogenesis, to the absured suggestion a cell can change its own complexity on its own, or citing a beginning without cause and all of the rest is just hilariously silly. The elements that create man don't explain man, the development of personality, sense of amazement, right and wrong, urge for survival or even the miracle of the language or arts (music) and its effect on human emotion.
Evolution's explanation of the beginning doesn't even pass for serious science (action without cause). Good question.
---larry on 1/23/10


Alan: I once had respect for you, but it is waning.

Have you, like MarkV, been endowed with the divine power to read other people's thoughts and motives? Do you ever reread what you write? Your spelling and grammatical construction have been degrading in the past several months. I truly could not understand what you meant, and was concerned that you might be experiencing health problems. Now you accuse me of ulterior motives. Good grief!

As for God's handwriting being "synbolism," it is not logical that God would GIVE "Mosaes" something that He wanted him to write, and then turn and claim authorship for Himself.
---jerry6593 on 1/23/10


Michael,

So your assumption must be that scientists conspired to make assumptions for two entirely different approaches to dating in order to come up with a date of 4.5 billion years?

Your assumption is quite unsupportable, unless you can provide evidence for this conspiracy?
---atheist on 1/22/10




Warwick,

Please provide the scientists, the name and the publishing journal for your claims. Again, any peer review on this thing?

Same question to you as to Michael, did scientists conspire so that two entirely different dating methods come up with the same number?
---atheist on 1/22/10


Simon .... "there is a Biblically sound case for agreeing that if God spoke directly and literally then why would he not literally use what would appear to Moses as His finger.

You are quite right ... there is nothing to have stopped God from "causing the inscription to appear in whatever way He deemed appropriate" such as by using Moses chisel.

And yes YOU are "over-burdening the details that could be seen as unnecessary" by insisting that the passage has to be taken absolutely literally, when you yourself allow for a variation in it
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/22/10


How can dating methods be accurate if assumptions are made that cannot be verified?
For example, in isochron dating, the non radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element originally contained in the material is assumed constant. nothing has been introduced or removed through it's life here on earth.. no contamination..
As for helioseismic dating.. the amount of helium originally in the Sun has to be assumed and cannot be verified..so how can a person guess the age to the Sun based upon the amount of helium currently in it's core?..not too mention possible variance in hydrogen/helium conversion due to heat and pressure.
It must take alot of faith to rely on dating methods such as these.
---MIchael on 1/22/10


Atheist you are quick to condemn the beliefs of others, demanding evidence or proof. You also make sweeping generalizations which you are obviously unable to support.

It is not that dating systems have 'limitations' but that they are based upon untestable assumptions and therefore cannot be accepted as fact. No dating system provides a date but rather provides chemical ratios which are interpreted as dates.

Dating systems used upon the same geologic layer provide wildly varying results. Consider the Uinkaret Plateau, at the Grand Canyon. Thirteen tests, using 4 diffeent dating systems (K-Ar, Rb-Sr,Rb-Sr Isochron, Pb-Pb isochron) gave dates from 10,000 to 2,600 million years! Do your tax that inacurately and Gaol awaits.
---Warwick on 1/22/10


Warwick,

And so why is that that I must pick one? You wanna play gotcha with an outlier study not vetted by peer review, based on questionable methodolgies, and stressing known limitations of one dating method or another?

All dating methods have limitations, but curiously they produce results pointing to an earth's age of about 4.5 billion years such as those of isochron and helioseismic dating methods.
---atheist on 1/22/10


Alan, how do you account for Matthew 3v17, 17v5, Mark 1v11, Luke 3v22, 2 Peter 1v17-18?

We might not claim to have heard the literal voice of God but there is a Biblically sound case for agreeing that if God spoke directly and literally then why would he not literally use what would appear to Moses as His finger. Or have caused the inscription to appear in whatever way He deemed appropriate - He is all powerful after all, I think we're over-burdening the details that could be seen as unnecessary - For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength (1 Corinthians 1v25)
---Simon7348 on 1/22/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Jerry ... I think it is just you, because you look for hidden meanings in everything others write, and seek disagreements.

As to the "finger of God" ... have you ever heard of synbolism? Ever heard of the "fist of God"? Or the "Hand of God" doing something? Have you ever literally heard God's voice?

If God told Mosaes to write something such as the 10C, I'd say he could use the phrase "finger of God" without blushing.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/22/10


Dolores, I do wonder which book you're referring to as it seems more like something I'd relate to Scientology than Christianity. As StrongAxe said though, if you can quote chapter and verse as to where you read this, it would help immensely.

Relating back to the original question, I find that most (and I stress it is most, not all) of those I come across who want to find a way to fit long age theory into the Bible (e.g. Gap Theory) is because they lack faith in the authenticity of and accuracy in the Bible. This is not intended as an accusation but merely a general observation.
---Simon7348 on 1/22/10


Alan: Maybe it's just me, but your writing is becoming increasingly less understandable. On another note:

"I don't see it necessarily mean God inscribed the tablets, rather than telling Moses what to carve."

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
---jerry6593 on 1/22/10


Dolores:

Yes, God created Eve from Adam's rib (humans could not reproduce without man and woman). However, nowhere is this mentioned as the "standard" method for humans to reproduce, let alone animals. At that point all animals were paired, only humans were not. The Garden of Eden story mentions only the sin of disobedience (eating the fruit of the tree), not of reproduction.

If the Bible says clones are "good" and body reproduction is "bad", can you provide chapter and birth to prove it?

Also, if body birth is so bad, why do all animals and humans have reproductive systems designed specifically to do it? This is like designing a car with a bomb under every engine for no good reason at all.
---StrongAxe on 1/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Atheist I am not coy at all, just direct. If I ask a question, or answer one I always endeavour to be clear and specific. Conversely both your original comment and your reply are vague.

It is what you call science which convinces you that Scripture is incorrect and that the earth is billions of years old. Please be specific and tell me what scientific dating method convinces you of this.

I have given you a specific and straight question and hopefully will recieve a specific and straight answer. After all I am an optomist.
---Warwick on 1/21/10


"foreshortening"is a biblical concept,"inspiration"is the God breathed word..this thing with science is a misconception,there was a time on the earth before rain,a time of very old lizards growing to a very large size,(Methuselah was 969yrs old)science will change again..Job is probably the oldest book in the bible and just look how God questions him:"who is this that darkeneth counsel without knowledge"?.(Ch38) etc,etc....
---richard on 1/21/10


StrongAxe: "Where do you get the idea that reproducing children was the original sin?"
In Genesis 1,2. God/Us Reproduced Eve from Adam's Rib, not by Body Birth. God/Us were Human Male and Female Clones, Our Human Ancestors from Space. God/Us, were not Spirit 'Beings', but Purebred Humans.
Today we Know Human Beings can Reproduce a Human Fetus in the Lab, in our Image, but we do not finish making Clones, like God/Us did.
The Original Sin was not Eating the Fruit, but reproducing Human Fruit, on the Tree of Good and Evil Reproduction.
High Tech Equal Male and Female Clone Helpmeets are 'Good' Peace Fruit. Body Birth Humans are 'Evil' Humans.
The Bible proves this, and so does our Nuclear Bombs on land and sea.
---Dolores on 1/21/10


Warwick,

Any science that points to an old earth. Don't be so coy. You know what I am talking about.
---atheist on 1/21/10


Shop For Christian Home Business Opportunities


Jerry ... I think that sentence is quite clear in it's meaning ... and supports Atheists suggestion that the earliest men were not able to write.

My point is that Moses wrote the accounbt of the earliest long after they occurred, and at the time he did that they were long past history.

Your questionn about Exodus is irrelevant to this blo, but no doubr Moses gave his won account of the 10C's origin. I don't see it necessarily mean God inscribed the tablets, rather than telling Moses what to carve.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/21/10


Alan: "it's generally accepted that Moses penned Genesis & Exodus and the next three books. So it was all written as history."
After centuries of handing down these 'Religious' Writings, from Body Birth, Death, and Rebirth, how many different Humans from all Parts of the Earth, have translated these 'super'natural writings?
Gods in our Human Image, Supernaturally flying up in the air, Creating/Colonizing Life on Earth.
And Reproduced the Human female Clones, from the male Rib, in their Human God Image.
With our High Tech, how will we translate these writings today, to hand down?
---Dolores on 1/21/10


\\Warwick and others will say that God directed axactly what Moses wrote, and thus it is an absolutely accurate account, including that of the Creation.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/20/10\\

Does this mean that Moses channeled most of the Torah through something akin to automatic writing? (I say "most" because I really doubt if Moses wrote his own obituary in Deuteronomy.)

Or does this mean that God inspired Moses to write it, even if Moses used whatever sources available to him, and God's message still came through Moses's personality and vocabulary?
---Cluny on 1/21/10


Alan: "It's clear that the geneology in Geneasiss Gen Chapter 10 & 11 are written as history, an account of what had happened They would not have been written as they are as they events unfolded."

You might want to clean that up a little, as it's hard to tell what you you're getting at.

But it does prompt me to ask:

Do you think that Exo 20:11 is written as an historical record of what actually happened, in as simple and straightforward a manner as possible?
---jerry6593 on 1/21/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Atheists comment made me think.

It's clear that the geneology in Geneasiss Gen Chapter 10 & 11 are written as history, an account of what had happened They would not have been written as they are as they events unfolded.

And it's generally accepted that Moses penned Genesis & Exodus and the next three books. So it was all written as history.

Warwick and others will say that God directed axactly what Moses wrote, and thus it is an absolutely accurate account, including that of the Creation.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/20/10


Atheist I asked "What "scientific theories and methods" do the dreaded "literal fundamentalists" "set aside to suit their beliefs?" Be specific please.

It would be nice if you answered!

You wrote " BTW, I can express a thought without plagiarising..." and I am sure you can however your unwillingness to answer my question suggested you didn't quite understand what you had written and therefore had no answer.

I would agree with 'Old.John, that the bible is not a science textbook, fortunately. Science textbooks are regularly upgraded or totally replaced when the contained information is proven to be incorrect. Nonetheless where the Bible speaks on science it is correct.
---Warwick on 1/20/10


Atheist you raise a very pertinent point. That which was written about the past and passed down, is history, while that which supposedly occurred before written records, is prehistory.

This is one of the many differences between the atheistic belief and Christianity. The latter being a faith firmly grounded in written history, and the former a belief unsubstantiated by historical records.
---Warwick on 1/20/10


The "Global Atheist Convention" is to be held in Melbourne, Australia, in March. As many will know various leading atheists ridicule belief in creation, some saying they like to have fun with creationists. Various prominent God-haters such as Richard Dawkins will be speaking.

Creation Ministries International (HQ Brisbane,Australia) sent the organizers an open letter of invitation/challenge to publically debate the creation/evolution issue. No direct reply was received however biologist PZ Myers rejected the offer to have fun with the creationist scientists, with a crude, offensive reply on his website. Obviously they do not have the courage to face these creation scientists in a public debate!

Wimps!
---Warwick on 1/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Cluny,

If you define history as a written records of events,---I would agree. But I would not agree that there were no humans prior to written records, or that written records from any time are necessarily true, much less the 'word of god' because they were recorded by unknown but ancient people.
---atheist on 1/20/10


\\Your insistence that the earth is but 10,000 years old shows you are willing to deny and set aside history and science to protect your beliefs.\\

OTOH, recorded human history seems to be no more than 10,000 years.

Would you agree?
---Cluny on 1/20/10


Dolores, Do you come from area 51 Nevada???
---1st_cliff on 1/20/10


Warwick,

BTW, I can express a thought without plagiarising...

Restated, misstated, and reformed theory of evolution: "Evolution says we're getting better 'n' better & are all sufficient within ourselves."

Your insistence that the earth is but 10,000 years old shows you are willing to deny and set aside history and science to protect your beliefs.

You should heed the words of Old.John: "The greater stress that is placed on the Bible, falsely, as a scientific textbook, the more it loses its power as a spiritual textbook."
---atheist on 1/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Dolores:

Where do you get the idea that reproducing children was the original sin? God tells all species, including humans, to be fruitful and multiply. The original sin was God telling Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he did so anyway. Note that there is no mention of reproduction here, despite what some with puritanical biases often wish to read into this story.
---StrongAxe on 1/20/10


\\A High Tech Womb is needed, to make Equal Asexual Female Helpmeets, not Mates, from the Male Rib like in Genesis 2.\\

There is no such word as "helpmeet."

Nor is this an ancient form of the non-word "helpmate".

It's comes from a mistaken reading or hearing (sometimes called a mondegreen) of two separate words from the KJV, where God says, "I will make a help meet for him".

"Meet" in this case means "fitting" or "suitable."
---Cluny on 1/20/10


Delores, I know that "to the Lord a day is like a thousand years", but "a thousand years is like a day - God is eternal, that is, He is outside of the dimension we quantify as time. He existed before the world began and there isn't a time he didn't exist. Now, you could say from that He would have plenty of time to set in motion millions of years of evolution, or as you pointed out, 6,000 years.
Consider this using your model. Each "day"/period is 1000 years long. On day 6, God created male and female in His image (Gen 1v27). Now read v31: "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." Note the words "very good".
---Simon7348 on 1/20/10


I do not Know where God/Us our High Tech Ancestors came from. Scripture and Myth should be translated with High Tech Science, and maybe this will be revealed.
We know how to Colonize Planets, Reproduce a fetus, and clone animals today by High Tech, not Supernaturally.
A High Tech Womb is needed, to make Equal Asexual Female Helpmeets, not Mates, from the Male Rib like in Genesis 2.
God/Us did not make Children. God/Us are not 'Spirit Beings', but High Tech Human Beings.
Reproducing Children was the Original Sin or the Original Male Colony. Generation Birth, Death, and Rebirth began on Earth.
---Dolores on 1/20/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Atheist you claim "Literal fundatmentalists...are willing to bend and restate scientific theories and methods to suit their beliefs."

Again I ask -what "scientific theories and methods" do the dreaded "literal fundamentalists" "set aside to suit their beliefs?" Be specific please.

Maybe you just selected this from an anti-Christian book and don't really know what it means?
---Warwick on 1/19/10


Dolores:

If God colonized this Earth (let us call it "Earth 2") from somewhere else (let us call that "Earth 1"), where did the life on Earth 1 come from?
---StrongAxe on 1/19/10


Delores,

You're not trying to put us on are you?

If not, where exactly did "Lord" colonize from, and where did that where ever come from, and who created "Lord"? And how did "Lord" do that?
---atheist on 1/19/10


Delores, where do you get the idea that a thousand years is as a day to the Lord?

Remember God is eternal and does not exist in time.
---Warwick on 1/19/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Sorry. I made a mistake on the time of Creation/Colonizaion of Earth.
A thousand years is as a Day with the Lord. Colonization took 6000 years, not 8000 years. (a mistype)
So Creation of Life on Earth did not take millions of years, or 6 Earth Days, but High Tech with Space travel Time 6000 years.
---Dolores on 1/19/10


Sorry. I made a mistake on the time of Creation/Colonizaion of Earth.
A thousand years is as a Day with the Lord. Colonization took 6000 years, not 8000 years. (a mistype)
So Creation of Life on Earth did not take millions of years, or 6 Earth Days, but High Tech with Space travel Time 6000 years.
---Dolores on 1/19/10


Atheist you dance around facts looking for a way to spin what is written. It is somewhat deceitful that you avoid the lie I mentioned (Saphira Acts 5:7,8) but try to spin the truth by attempting to put words in my mouth re Genesis 30:37-43.

When reading literature the discerning person does pick and choose what they will take at 'face-value' and what are figures of speech.

Consider Isaiah 55:12 ".... the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands." I feel no need to take this at face-value, considering this to contain figures of speech. Neither would I be bothered if someone wanted to take it at face-value.
---Warwick on 1/18/10


In Genesis 1, Life did not Evolve, it was Colonized. 1 Day with the Lord's Space Travel, is equal to 8000 years Earth's Time.
Now that High Tech Science Knowledge has returned to Earth through Generation Birth, Death, and Rebirth, Humans today, need a High Tech Science Translation of Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1:26. "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: -" And in Genesis 2, the Us Male and Females, made the female Eves, from the male ribs. Today we call this Cloning.
With our High Tech Science Knowledge of Colonization and Reproduction in a High Tech Lab, it is Time for a High Tech Science Translation of All Scripture and Myth.
---Dolores on 1/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Warwick,

So Genesis 30:37-43 is a lie, but 'god' made 'creation' in six days. Please, pick and chose to suit yourself.
---atheist on 1/18/10


\\But if 'creation' is held absolutely to have occurred in six days and that the bible is the 'word of god' and to be taken literally, then this too must be taken literally as the word of 'god'. ----Even if it can be shown to be absolutely false.\\

There's a difference between "literal" and "literalistic"--something that people on both sides of the divide miss.

Though I belive it literally happened that Jacob practiced a form of folk magic. Nowhere does the Bible say we should do the same.
---Cluny on 1/18/10


Atheist I believe you have committed an error in logic. You appear to be saying that if the Bible faithfully records a human lie, that lie is no longer a lie! Consider Acts ch. 5:7,8 Saphira told Peter the money she and her husband had given was the amount they sold the land for. This was a lie.

The Bible is the truth but it obviously includes lies people told.

To say the Bible must be taken literally is a 'straw-man' argument as it is not taken literally, but at face value, unless there is good reason no to do so. That is how we read all literature, isn't it? Consider Noye's poem The Highwayman "The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.." Was it a galleon or is this a metaphor?
---Warwick on 1/18/10


Interestingly, as atheistic historians of science admit the modern scientific method, (from which all modern technological marvels came about), was a product of Christian thought!
---Warwick on 1/18/10

Pretty interesting. Now take a step further/deeper as a scripture sign/mark of recognition. A light for the blind.
Jeremiah 31:37
Thus saith the LORD, If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
This is the people that would search scientifically....GOD forseen. Won't/hasn't happened, a point as well...this casting off the denoms teach. Billions of Galaxys discovered..again.
---Trav on 1/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Atheist you wrote " Literal fundatmentalists seem willing to pick and chose those parts of the bible they take as literal truth just as they are willing to bend and restate scientific theories and methods to suit their beliefs."

Setting aside that theories, scientific or otherwise, are not scientific fact, what "scientific theories and methods" do the dreaded "literal fundamentalists" "set aside to suit their beliefs?" Be specific please.
---Warwick on 1/18/10


"But the bible does teach us..." A', 1/17

Who are the "us" you're referring to? :) Who one is, in his heart/soul/mind, determines what one is willing (by faith) or unwilling (because of spiritual blindness) to see (to comprehend).

The Bible also teaches "us" (the followers of Jes"us"), "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, & my thoughts than your thoughts (Is. 55:9) -- God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound (shame) the wise (conceited: PROUD)...(1 Cor. 1:27)"

Again A', have you tried what G30 describes?
---Leon on 1/18/10


Cluny,

I would say that it is superstition/folk medicine.

But if 'creation' is held absolutely to have occurred in six days and that the bible is the 'word of god' and to be taken literally, then this too must be taken literally as the word of 'god'. ----Even if it can be shown to be absolutely false.

Literal fundatmentalists seem willing to pick and chose those parts of the bible they take as literal truth just as they are willing to bend and restate scientific theories and methods to suit their beliefs.
---atheist on 1/18/10


Jacob had already "tapped into"(for want of a better phrase)the Abrahamic covenant,so,he put the sticks in the water trough "in faith expecting" then waited for God to give the increase,it worked for him,his God was with him,as Daniel later put it "those that know their God shall be strong and do exploits"..why pick holes in the bible?,Christians know who they trust and they dont care about scientific claptrap,its too late to shut the stable door once the horse has bolted..
---richard on 1/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


\\But the bible does teach us that if you put striped sticks in the water trough in front of goats so they can see them while they are mating that speckled or spotted goats will be their progeny.\\

Is this a scientific statement, or simply showing people how they are and acted, warts and all, including belief in sympathetic or folk magic?
---Cluny on 1/18/10


Every time a new individual of any species is conceived, God is creating.

Every time God works on a human being to turn that person into a more perfect copy of His own image and likeness through that process Eastern Christianity calls "theosis," God is creating.
---Cluny on 1/18/10


It is a compromise that they are making to juggle what the Bible says into a box that agrees with the world's view. Those who think in that way may not be very familiar with the Bible and simple lack knowledge and others do not believe the Bible is literal. They basically do not believe God in general since He makes it clear that He created everything. Some do not even see the dichotomy or contradiction in their own beliefs. They probably also dismiss many other ideas that God teaches in the Word.
---jody on 1/18/10


And the atheistic evolutionary belief says life arose by unknown and unknowalble processes, without any intelligent input. Fairy story without any faries!

Interestingly, as atheistic historians of science admit the modern scientific method, (from which all modern technological marvels came about), was a product of Christian thought!
---Warwick on 1/18/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Agnostic: You know nothing of Science or of the Bible.
---jerry6593 on 1/18/10


what you have missed is when God is involved speckled goats can be gotten from eating grape jello,if thats what God intends.
---tom2 on 1/18/10


"Evolution says we're getting better 'n' better & are all sufficient within ourselves."

No it does not.

But the bible does teach us that if you put striped sticks in the water trough in front of goats so they can see them while they are mating that speckled or spotted goats will be their progeny.

The 'science' of the bible is certaintly different than modern science.
---atheist on 1/17/10


"...can someone explain to me why it doesn't work?" atheist, 1/16

You've tried it? :)
---Leon on 1/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


"...God flooded the earth. This was due to fallen angels mating with human women..." PJ, 1/17

How was that possible if, as you say, "There is NO evolution that crosses species."? Isn't angelkind & mankind two distinctly different species?

Please explain. What is the same type of abomination being performed by man today?

---Leon on 1/17/10


\\The greater stress that is placed on the Bible, falsely, as a scientific textbook, the more it loses its power as a spiritual textbook.
---Old.John on 1/16/10\\

Good point, Old.John!
---Cluny on 1/17/10


Is Evolution A Biblical Concept?
As in "any process of formation or growth" Yes.
As in "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." No.
As for Creation and it's process, Father explained His method in this, "God made____ (fill in the blank with anything you like) after his/their kind, and saw that it was good." A man has always been a man, the only "evolution" involved is from embryo to adult, and a God given ability to adapt to environmental changes.
Jerry, concerning your question, as to why? I have no idea. This I do know, faith can be placed anywhere one chooses, all praises to the Father, He has given me to choose Him.
---josef on 1/17/10


Evolution is FALSE,proof: a caterpillar becomes a butterfly....the only reason it can do this is because it was created with the genes to do so..you cannot evolve to "metamorphosis"like the caterpillar There are many proofs that evolution does not work like the fact that,it breaks the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.Even Darwin changed his mind at the end..
---richard on 1/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


christians dont believe in the evolution of man.
---tom2 on 1/16/10


Because most Christains are ignorant of the Biblical facts and therefore cannot defend it.

There is evolution within the Genome of every species. There is NO evolution that crosses species.

It was the very reason God flooded the Earth. This was due to the Fallen angels mating with human woman and thus creating mutations and abominations.

Now this same type of abomination is being performed by man today. I believe God will give the same answer and use fire to end it.
---PASTOR_JIM on 1/17/10


The main objection by believers to the theory of evolution seems to always stand on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the word of 'god' as the absolute truth.

Genesis 30:37-43 explains a method of animal husbandry with a genetic outcome. If the bible is true, can someone explain to me why it doesn't work?
---atheist on 1/16/10


The evolutionary claim is that man has over eons evolved from a relatively simple life form to the complicated, advanced beings we are today. This theory is totally different from & diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches. Evolution says we're getting better 'n' better & are all sufficient within ourselves.

According to the Bible, God prefectly created man -- sinless. But, when Adam sinned they degenerated (began devolving) from superior humanity to inferior, death doomed, beings. The entire Bible shows man has been in a downward spiral ever since despite all the technological advances made from antiquity to the present. The Bible says lost humanity is getting worse 'n' worse & needs a Savior.
---Leon on 1/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


The author of Genisis states there is no branching of life forms.At present the current ,most widely accepted view by christians explanation is that life forms was created as they are in their present form.
On the human level of observation Adam,believed to be the first human man species, should have the same physical structure and appearance as a normal human today.Eve,believed to be the first female also.And now what of the human remains found world wide?
However the question implies an assumption.
---earl on 1/16/10


It depends on what you mean by evolution.

The basic definition of evolution is an orderly development from simpler to more complex forms.

A godless model of evolution based on mere random mutations requires too many things to evolve simultaneously, such as the long bill and tongue of hummingbirds to extract nectar from long flowers.

If by evolution, you mean God working through natural processes that He Himself set up, then it's still God creating, is it not?
---Cluny on 1/16/10


The greater stress that is placed on the Bible, falsely, as a scientific textbook, the more it loses its power as a spiritual textbook.
---Old.John on 1/16/10


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