Is there a case for evolution?

[M2]

Scientist conclude that the universe must have come about via some sort of BigBang and that life as we know it evolved from primor.. soup.

The evidence points to evolution, rather than creation.

Do you agree??

Marcia

P.S.
Though I personally believe in creation, I find it useful to be able to have answers when I speak to the non-Christians who believe in evolution.  Quoting verses is insufficient, though necessary.  I am interested in your point of view, other than verses, for that reason.
MM

[vernecarty]

Scientist conclude that the universe must have come about via some sort of BigBang and that life as we know it evolved from primor.. soup.

The evidence points to evolution, rather than creation.

Do you agree??

Marcia

Most intelligent people would immediately tell you that the answer to this question depends entirely on how you define "evolution".
Verne

[lenore]

The Complete Christian Dictionary for Home and School defines
EVOLUTION: N
1. Development, a process of continual progress
2. The unreasonable theoray, held by many "scientist" and others, that our intricately designed and infinitely ordered universe developed all by itself out of chaos, that certain unknown conditions in the primitive atmosphere and ocean acted upon mysterious chemicals to synthesize more complex chemicals which were able to reproduce themselves. These chemicals, whatever they were, supposedly constituted the original living systems from which all living organisms later evolved.
NOTE: This is altogether contrary to the Word of God and to the first law of science (that nothing is now being created) and to the laws of thermodynamics. Creation on the other hand, by an almighty , allwise Creator, is a scientific theory that does fit all the facts of true science as well as God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures. There is not one shred of evidence that non living substances were evolved into living organisms. The tremendous complexity and order of the world, its  plants and animals, and the human body can only be explained by intelligent planning, not by a random process of chance variation and natural selection.
Evolution at best is a religious faith , not science.

EVOLVE: V.  To develop or work out gradually.

==============================================

Evolution as the big bang theory.   THere is no evidence.
Creation                                            Evidence.

Beside God created something out of nothing.
God is the Big Bang Creator.

The theory of what happen to the dinasaurs?
Why not the evidence they drowned with flood of Noah!!?

People can evolve, by changing inside. They evolve by growing up.
Technology has evolve so fast that people cant keep up with the changes from one minute to the other.
Certain animals have the ability to evolve to meet their changing environments.

Evolution that man came from a lower form of animal. God created both. But God Created Man separate from man.
Man has evolved from the early cultural environments to the present day.
Man wisdom teeth were use to eat the type of food that were necessary to use those teeth. Today wisdom teeth are usually pulled upon growing in, because there is no room in the mouth for them.

Medical Fields have evolved, from no hope for everyday common illnesses, to modern medication to be able to fight off those same disease, control the spread of the disease, and some diseases wipe them out.  Yet medicines cant seem to keep up with diseases that keep evolving to develop new illnesses, no strains that have no cure.

Dogs have evolved from wild animal to a domestic animals.
How many breeds of dogs through genetic interference of man, that have evolved .


I can go on and on, on cultural, societies, evolutions that have taken place even in our life times.
But who is the ultimate creator of that evolution.

Just putting my two cents into the think tank.

Lenore

[al Hartman]

 

Quote from: Marcia on October 10, 2004, 03:06:42 pm
Scientist conclude that the universe must have come about via some sort of BigBang and that life as we know it evolved from primor.. soup.

The evidence points to evolution, rather than creation.

Do you agree??

Marcia
 

Posted by: vernecarty  Posted on: October 10, 2004, 05:51:13 pm
Most intelligent people would immediately tell you that the answer to this question depends entirely on how you define "evolution".
Verne  

     ...or how you define "evidence."

     The "examples" of animal evolution that Lenore cites are more accurately described as adaptation, and have little or no relationship at all to the theory of the evolution of species from lower species.

     Numerous theories have been concocted re: such matters as the disappearance of the dinosaurs, however I don't think there is any actual evidence to suggest that they existed up until the flood-- if they had, wouldn't Noah have taken two of each onto the ark?  (Of course, some of the Irish speculate that the unicorns refused to go onboard, and that's how they disappeared .)

     I am also curious about how you define "insufficient."  While there is a school of thought that it is best to out-argue the skeptic on his own turf, to wear him down in preparation for the gospel, I doubt the wisdom of it in most cases.  A scientist who is a believer may be able to hold forth successfully in conversation with a genuinely interested layman, but they don't seem to do so well with their non-believing peers within academia.

     The Word of God is explicit regarding the fact of creation, and that mankind's wisdom is foolishness to God, while the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.  However, God has chosen to, through the foolishness of preaching, convert men unto salvation.  If there is a rosetta stone able to translate the language of heaven for the ear of the fallen, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

al

[sfortescue]

The strongest argument is the improbability.  It couldn't have happened by chance.  But the fact that people buy lottery tickets proves that most people don't understand improbability.

[outdeep]

Scientist conclude that the universe must have come about via some sort of BigBang and that life as we know it evolved from primor.. soup.

The evidence points to evolution, rather than creation.

Do you agree??

Marcia

P.S.
Though I personally believe in creation, I find it useful to be able to have answers when I speak to the non-Christians who believe in evolution.  Quoting verses is insufficient, though necessary.  I am interested in your point of view, other than verses, for that reason.
MM

I think you may be confusing two ideas.  Big Bang and evolution are not necessarily the same package.  I think there are a couple of paths one can go down:

1.  Matter was created by some sort of external cause.  It once did not exist, but this external cause brought it into being.  Some may argue that this was an impersonal force; Christians would argue that it is some form of intelligent design that set things into motion.

2.  Matter is eternal.  All that we see, feel, and experience has always been and always will be.  It simply evolved from one form to another.

I think the big bang points better to #1 than #2.

-Dave

By the way, recently I was at my son's High School open house.  In his earth science class, a couple approaced my son's teacher.  They looked like the sterotype of the characture of southern blue collar couple.  He was wearing a mechanics shirt with cigaretts bulging out, stubble on her face.  She was plain with unkept hair.  They looked like they would fit in at a Primitive Baptist KJV-only church that viewed outsiders with suspicion.  

"So, are u goin' to teach the big byang?"  (angry glair)
"Yes sir, it is required in the curriculum."
"So, yor not goin' to teach creashun?"  (angry glair)
"No sir, I'm not qualified to teach creationism."
"Why, u goin' to teach big byang and not creashun?" (angry glair).

I sort of saw this was turning into a great witness for Jesus   so I went up and engaged in conversation with the teacher.  I told her that what I understood about the latest research is that the universe converges back to about 15 billion years.  This frustrates the evolutionists because it is simply not enought time.  It also frustrates the young earth Christian because it is too much time.  I was then able to send her some articles on the big bang from Hugh Ross' website that reconciles the scientific models with Biblical teaching.  www.reasons.org

I was thankful the Lord gave opportunity to turn a closed door into an open one.

[vernecarty]

But the fact that people buy lottery tickets proves that most people don't understand improbability.

Ahhh....but people do not buy lottery tickets because of statistical erudition Steve...for them it is entirely a matter of "faith"...
Verne

[Joe Sperling]

Dave---

I really appreciate your bringing up Hugh Ross. He has helped clear up so much for me. Also, Don Stoner and his book "A New Look at and Old Earth".  I used to have more of an idea of God speaking things into existence like a magician--"poof!!" and it's there, rather than an intelligent step by step design, taking into account the laws of physics, etc. that He himself set into motion.

The earth has been in existence for billions of years, and during that time it has gone through steps and processes all leading to the time when man would be "able" to inhabit it. When the time became right God created man upon the same world that dinosaurs used to inhabit millions of years before. I find it to be utterly fascinating though what you believe regarding this has nothing to do with salvation in the least.

I would recommend any book by Hugh Ross concerning Genesis, or space or science though. He is an extremely intelligent scientist, but also a very sincere Christian at the same time.

--Joe

[M2]

I hear that Hugh Ross is Canadian !!

I have not perused his website yet, nor read any of his books.

Does he believe in an "old" earth and evolution scenario, rather than a Gen 1, 6-day creation scenario?

Marcia

[al Hartman]

     Here's an ironic, on-topic quotation:

              Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
                    --Charles Darwin, naturalist and author (1809-1882)

[outdeep]

I hear that Hugh Ross is Canadian !!

I have not perused his website yet, nor read any of his books.

Does he believe in an "old" earth and evolution scenario, rather than a Gen 1, 6-day creation scenario?

Marcia

He is definately not young earth.  For that reason, he is often critisized by his brethren.

[M2]

I hear that Hugh Ross is Canadian !!

I have not perused his website yet, nor read any of his books.

Does he believe in an "old" earth and evolution scenario, rather than a Gen 1, 6-day creation scenario?

Marcia

He is definately not young earth.  For that reason, he is often critisized by his brethren.

I could wade through the website, or you could give me a gist of HughRoss' belief.  I prefer the latter, if you have time, and would appreciate it if you did.

Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Marcia---

Hugh Ross does not believe in evolution. But he does teach that the Word of God is perfect, and so is the Universe. In both of them we have God's testimony to himself and his existence. They cannot deny one another. Science is real, physics are real, mathematics are real, and they are all part of the Universe.

Science proves that the Universe is billions of years old. Does the Bible teach otherwise? What makes Christianity appear stupid to many scientists is the teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old---but this is not a Biblical teaching at all--this is a teaching made by men who have "interpreted" the Bible to say so.

According to this teaching all of the millions of dinosaur fossils have only been in the ground for a short amount of time. You have to believe that Noah was able to take aboard and feed millions of species of animals. And it all goes back to the word "day". Young earth "scientists" teach that the (7) days of creation are literal 24 hour days. But the Hebrew word for "day" can refer to 24 hours, or to an indefinite period of time.  Just as we use the term "day" to refer to 24 hours or longer--for example "he's had his day"--or "the day of the Lord"--which we know is not one day, but encompassing the tribulation.

An interesting point that shows this is that the (6) days of creation all say "and the evening and morning were the ____ day". But the 7th day doesn't say this--it says God rested--but we are STILL in the seventh day--so the 7th day is definitely NOT a 24 hour day. God is still resting---he has ceased the work he accomplished in the 6 days. Now these (6) days could encompass billions of years in time---we don't know the length of the days. But as these days(which follow closely with how scientists say the world was formed) progressed, God introduced different creations upon the earth---all leading up to the time when man would appear.

Without the dinosaurs, and the vast vegetation on the earth over those billions of years we would have no coal, or oil, or natural gas for our use. God literally "prepared the earth" for man's appearance. This is basically what Hugh Ross shows in his books---and it makes good sense---and matches science and it's discoveries with the creation days in the Bible.

Science and the Bible do not have to be enemies, or in denial of one another. "The heavens declare the glory of God" and "thou hast exalted thy Word above thy name" are brothers, not enemies of one another.  You should read Hugh Ross's books---I think you will be very surprised at the good sense they make.

--Joe

[M2]

Marcia---

Hugh Ross does not believe in evolution. But he does teach that the Word of God is perfect, and so is the Universe. In both of them we have God's testimony to himself and his existence. They cannot deny one another. Science is real, physics are real, mathematics are real, and they are all part of the Universe.

Science proves that the Universe is billions of years old. Does the Bible teach otherwise? What makes Christianity appear stupid to many scientists is the teaching that the world is only 10,000 years old---but this is not a Biblical teaching at all--this is a teaching made by men who have "interpreted" the Bible to say so.

According to this teaching all of the millions of dinosaur fossils have only been in the ground for a short amount of time. You have to believe that Noah was able to take aboard and feed millions of species of animals. And it all goes back to the word "day". Young earth "scientists" teach that the (7) days of creation are literal 24 hour days. But the Hebrew word for "day" can refer to 24 hours, or to an indefinite period of time.  Just as we use the term "day" to refer to 24 hours or longer--for example "he's had his day"--or "the day of the Lord"--which we know is not one day, but encompassing the tribulation.

An interesting point that shows this is that the (6) days of creation all say "and the evening and morning were the ____ day". But the 7th day doesn't say this--it says God rested--but we are STILL in the seventh day--so the 7th day is definitely NOT a 24 hour day. God is still resting---he has ceased the work he accomplished in the 6 days. Now these (6) days could encompass billions of years in time---we don't know the length of the days. But as these days(which follow closely with how scientists say the world was formed) progressed, God introduced different creations upon the earth---all leading up to the time when man would appear.

Without the dinosaurs, and the vast vegetation on the earth over those billions of years we would have no coal, or oil, or natural gas for our use. God literally "prepared the earth" for man's appearance. This is basically what Hugh Ross shows in his books---and it makes good sense---and matches science and it's discoveries with the creation days in the Bible.

Science and the Bible do not have to be enemies, or in denial of one another. "The heavens declare the glory of God" and "thou hast exalted thy Word above thy name" are brothers, not enemies of one another.  You should read Hugh Ross's books---I think you will be very surprised at the good sense they make.

--Joe

Joe, thank you for summarizing that for me.  Hugh Ross' books are available at the local library, and I have requested a hold for me.

I assumed that the flood could explain most of the "aging", fossils, and fuel reserves, but I will check out HughRoss' books.

God bless,
Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Marcia---

The age of the earth issue isn't really all that important--at least for most people. But it is a very important factor in the minds of many scientists, who won't even venture to open the Bible due to the "foolishness" it "must" teach because of the interpretations of Creation Scientists who claim the earth is only 10,000 years old.

If the earth is only 10,000 years old, and man has lived on it for basically 6000 years of that, it means that the literally millions of different fossil species all lived at the same time upon the earth. Men with Tyrannosaurus Rex.
and literally millions of other reptile, mammal, birds,  etc.--ALL at the same time. If you look at it statistically, it is impossible. A flood destroying literally billions upon billions of creatures in the fossil record all at the same time is not possible.

if you can, read Hugh Ross's book about Genesis--it is very intriguing to say the least.

--Joe