theistic evolution

Hisbrother · 09-27-2002, 07:21 PM

Can you ablutley, Biblecally rule out theistic evolution?
In Genisis 1:9, "And God said, 'Let the water under theskay be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so" First, the whole world was covered with water, then God made land. Isn't that how evolutionists think it happened. As far as water then land I mean.
Genisis 1:14, "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky seperate to seperate teh day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," Star light takes some time to travle to us. Maybe even four days. Now some one's gonna say that it's refering to the Sun and Moon. Well, the sun and moon aren't the astronomical bodies that were used to mark seasons before. The ancients used constelations, meaning stars, to mark seasons. And also, the sun and moon do not cover the "expanse" of the sky. They each cover some of it, but not enough to fill what would be called an expanse.
On the fifth day, God only created birds and fish. Then the next day he created land animals. Also a point that evolutionists believe. Sea creatures before land creatures.
Genisis 2:4b-7 "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-and no shrub of teh field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not snet rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" Okay, a few things about this one. Man was created on the 6th day, and plants on the third day. So if plants hadn't sprung up from the ground yet by the sixth day, then they must have been seeds that God planted. Just as He planted Eden (Genisis 2:8). So he didn't make full grown plants as most devine creationists say He did. And, God made Adam from dirt. From the soil of the earth. From molocules that weren't biologically alive at one point. Just like evolutionists say.
So can you really say that Teistic evolution out of wack?

Cheese · 09-27-2002, 09:19 PM

Just to establish things:
Please be so kind as to tell why it is necessary to believe in evolution.

Travis · 09-27-2002, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cheese
Just to establish things:
Please be so kind as to tell why it is necessary to believe in evolution.

Eh, let's not go through all that. There are other threads for it. Lets keep those to debate which is true and use this to debate whether it can be reconciled with the Bible.

Cheese · 09-28-2002, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travis
Eh, let's not go through all that. There are other threads for it. Lets keep those to debate which is true and use this to debate whether it can be reconciled with the Bible.

Why not? For every argument for evolution their is one against it. If his premise is screwed up (that we should believe in evolution because it has been proven to be true by vastly brilliant scientists

) then the whole point is moot. I can say Theistic evolution is out of whack considering that evolution is not conclusively proven.

But I suppose you are right and I should stick to talking about how evolution relates to the Bible.

**meatfinger** · 09-30-2002, 10:05 AM

Can you absolutely Biblically rule out theisitic evolution?

No. If you could, it wouldn't be around today. I think it all depends on how you view the context of Genesis; theistic evolutionists view it as metaphorical, 6-day Christians view it as literal. that's just something you have to decide for yourself. i personally believe that there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that The first three chapters of Genesis are metaphorical. For this reason, I choose to believe in literal creation. Another of the main problems with Theistic evolution is that it seems to be using science as a filter through which to interpret the Bible. We shouldn't look to see if we can reconcile Scripture with sience, but if we can reconcile science with Scripture. Don't let modern day theories and findings change your interpretation of the Bible.

chris

Hisbrother · 10-02-2002, 08:38 PM

Right there. My science teacher has a saying. "True science always agrees with the Bible".
Okay, I'm not really sure which I think is correct, devine creation or theistic evolution. That's because I've sorta tweaked theistic evolution a little. So for the rest of this post when I say theistic evolution, I'm talking about my super special theistic evolution. Okay, I do believe in 6, roughly 24 hour days of creation. But, what if God used evolution in those days. So what scientists say took billions of years, He did in 6 days with a kind of super fast-forwarded evolution. He sent an ameba through the whole evolving cycle in 1 day. Then He stopped evolving everything (stopped acting against the 2nd law of thermodynamics/stopped making that particular miracle happen) and let Adam start his life.
This isn't taking Genisis 1 as a metophorical chapter, but it does say that God used evolution to creat everything. The way I see it, it doesn't hurt anything to consider this possible. Which is what I've been doing for the past week or so.

Acquinas · 10-02-2002, 10:45 PM

If we reduce theistic evolution to a process that lasted only six days, then any and all evidence for evolution is negated. The fossil record occured over a long period (I'll leave it at long, considering a few thousand years and a few million years can be considered long to six days). Thus, evidence of evolution over six days could never be present. If there is no evidence for this evolution over six days, and the evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, why believe in it?

Another flaw with traditional theistic evolution. In the Bible before the fall, there were no carnivores, no death, no decay. However, if man did not develop until several million years had passed since creation, then death would have already occured. Thus, he would enter an already fallen world. This eliminates the doctrine of original sin, questions the total depravity of man, and changes the whole idea of atonement.

I see no way that the two areas can be reconciled.

Acquinas · 10-02-2002, 10:50 PM

A note on Genesis 2:4-7

“[an observant Christian] notices right away that on the third day, only two kinds of plants are said to shoot forth from the earth: grains and fruit trees. Nothing is said about any other plants. To be sure, perhaps all the other plants are included, but when we come to Genesis 2:5, the initial impression is corrected. There are some plants, “shrubs of the field,” that had not been made at the time Adam was created. Thus, [one] reasons, these were not made on the third day. Moreover, according to 2:5, the grain plants, though they existed, had not yet sprouted any grain, while according to 2:16, the fruit trees did already have fruit on them.”

-Jordan, James B. Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Canon Press: 1999) p. 14

trackstar3 · 10-04-2002, 07:17 PM

so what do evolutionists say everything started out as? some type of amoeba type thing, right? that grew and grew til it became something a little more complex, yeah which in turn became more complex, until eventually this thing (and its "descendents") turned into man.

then there is that verse talking about how god made man in his image. so i he made man in his own image, and if the first "men" were amoebas, does this mean god resembles and amoeba? yeah that's going a little too far with. i can deal with someone believing in strictly in creation or strictly evolution, but theistic evolution just doesn't do much for me.

i think i'm might post more later...... :kcool:

**meatfinger** · 10-04-2002, 11:44 PM

(trackstar) so what do evolutionists say everything started out as? some type of amoeba type thing, right? that grew and grew til it became something a little more complex, yeah which in turn became more complex, until eventually this thing (and its "descendents") turned into man.

(Me) That's a pretty crude way of putting it. I guess it works for laymans terms.

(trackstar) then there is that verse talking about how god made man in his image. so i he made man in his own image, and if the first "men" were amoebas, does this mean god resembles and amoeba?

(Me) you're not making a whole lot of sense with this one. This argument isn't going to make it very far on this board (especially with Jerry, should he choose to participate in this thread). I'm on your side, I don't agree with theistic evolution, but your argument is pretty weak. No offense.

Hisbrother · 10-05-2002, 01:45 PM

"then there is that verse talking about how god made man in his image. so i he made man in his own image, and if the first "men" were amoebas, does this mean god resembles and amoeba? yeah that's going a little too far with."

Okay, I do agree that men were created in God's image, but how exact is that verse. I'm not doubting that it's true, just how specific it is. Me, being a male, look very different from every female on the planet. Also, me being cocasion makes me look very different from every non-cocasion male on the planet. Me having blue eyes makes me look very diffenent from every other male cocasion with eye color other than blue on the planet. Me having dirty blonde hair makes me look very different from every male cocasion with blue eyes and any other color hair. On top of all this is my height, weight, widow's peak and bad acne that any one would have to match to look like me. And I don't have to tell about general facial features (nose, ears, cheecks) would be tough to mimic. So obviusly "God's image" isn't very descriptive. So are you the one to decide how descriptive God's image is and rule out ameobas?

TheJ15 · 10-05-2002, 01:54 PM

Gees, sometimes I think people post things just to get more posts under their belts. What is the use in talking about theistic evolution, it never gets anywhere?? Do you really think God want's such a topic to keep us all from what really matters?? I don't think so. The truth is we are to win people to Christ, not sit and debate over petty issues. It's really silly. I'm so sorry, but I have to post this. I'm trying really hard to "love thy neighbor," so i'll stop here.

TheJ15

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-07-2002, 03:31 PM

Radioactive haloes are an interesting phenomena that rule out at least the slow forming of rocks as espoused to be one of the foundations for evolutionary geology. basically it involves the burst of radiation from radioactive elements with extremely short half lives leaving a photographic discoloration which is unique for each element. this at least rules out the slow forming rocks that are considered necessarry in old-earth geology

trackstar3 · 10-07-2002, 05:11 PM

as for my last post, which some have considered to be weak, i'm seriously not posting just to get things "under my belt". i simply have wandered over to this forum, which i visit very very very rarely, and just decided to post what was on my mind with that subject. i don't mean to be defensive, and i will readily admit that it definitly wasn't even close to being a strong argument, but i'm just saying that there may be some people out there who are just posting their opinion on something, and they might just use laymans' terms cuz that seems like the best way to describe what they are saying. so go on with this topic, it's interesting, and i like to read it.

peace out. :kcool:

MonkeeSage · 10-07-2002, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheJ15
Gees, sometimes I think people post things just to get more posts under their belts. What is the use in talking about theistic evolution, it never gets anywhere?? Do you really think God want's such a topic to keep us all from what really matters?? I don't think so. The truth is we are to win people to Christ, not sit and debate over petty issues. It's really silly. I'm so sorry, but I have to post this. I'm trying really hard to "love thy neighbor," so i'll stop here.

TheJ15

^^ It should give any Christian ample pause when they see people talking about preaching Christ, as if that action could be divorced from knowledge and rationality, truely so-called.

Christ did not call people to "feel" Him, He called people to follow Him, and following Him means searching out all that is both light AND darkness, so as to know when we ARE in the light (1 Thess. 5:21-22).

True knowledge starts from what God has revealed in His Word, and it is just there that we find "logic" and "reasoning" established--it is our great God Himself who deigned to lower Himself to commune with His fallen creatures, and to what end? "Come now and let us reason together, says Jehovah: Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red as the crimson, they shall be like wool." (Isa. 1:18, AV).

To know God, truely, is to know truely, and to know truely, is salvation.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. (NET).

Proverbs 9:10 The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord, and acknowledging the Holy One is understanding. (NET).

Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G