Did God use evolution to create life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.

Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.

Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality

Lot's Wife... just figurative

The Red Sea Crossing....not real either

Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?

Virgin birth......impossible

Ressurection......just figurative

Eternal life.......

on and on it goes.

Every time the word "day"is used in the Old Testament and modified by an ordinal, it means 24 hour day.


God is not flakey with words.
God didn't define 6 days here differently that the definition of the 7th day.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Same writer
Same bible
Same book of the bible
Same God says:

10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

If an honest godly person interprets scripture correctly, under what basis does the duration of seven days change between Genesis chapter 2 and Genesis chapter 7?

Using Darwinism to interpret scripture was not available to the OT prophets and writers.
These same folowers of Darwin say the 6 days referred to in the 10 suggestions are different days than the 7 th day which is the sabbath day.

Long-agers generally teach that Genesis 1 means something other than what it says, such as that it is theological poetry, or an allegory involving metaphorical people.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.


I know the folks that take biology clases get stumped when they say millions of years and can't explain how plants were created the day before sunshine for photosynthesis.
How did these plants live for millions of years without heat and sunlight?

Well, "literally" there was already "light." That's all a plant needs in that regard. And with regard to "heat" - there would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.

Here's a stumper for you though:

Genesis 1:25-27, says that humans were created after the animals. It also clearly states that both the man and the woman were created simultaneously.

Yet, Genesis 2:18-22, very clearly states that a human being was created first, then the animals and finally the woman.

So, literally, which is it?

[pelathais]

... oh! By the way, "Hi" to kristian's_mom. And the answer is "yes."

[coadie]

Acts 17:26And(G) he made from one man every nation of mankind to live(H) on all the face of the earth,(I) having determined allotted periods and(J) the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Hebrews 4:4 (King James Version)

4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Of course the Darwinist interpretation denies this verse:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

...
God is not flakey with words.
...

DING! DING! DING! coadie and I agree! coadie and I agree!



However, we still need tools to help us to understand those words. For example:

Matthew 27:9-10

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

Yet, as every student of the Old Testament knows, these are NOT the words of "Jeremy the prophet" (Jeremiah) but the words of Zechariah the prophet who lived almost 100 years later.

So, how can we demand that Genesis 1 - 11, be held to one standard of absolute wooden literalism while we waffle a bit on the historical account of our Lord's own crucifixion?

Do we demand that these be the words of Jeremiah even though they are clearly the words of Zechariah? (See Zechariah 11:12-13).

Or should we just abandon the faith and live like the men of Sodom (whether literally or figuratively, we'll let you choose)?

How about this? How about if we just accept the words of the Bible the same way that we accept the natural speech of those around us? This is NOT to say that the Bible isn't inspired. However, this approach does recognize the Bible as being given to us in human speech and not some "magical formula" that only a magi could read.

When someone in the Bible makes a sweeping generalization or an expansive reference like Matthew does here we should handle it in the same manner that we understand other human speech. When a later writer makes a generalization and quotes the words of Genesis 1, we should understand it the same way we understand Jesus' command to "go and do likewise" - - Likewise what? Likewise a story that Jesus had just made up (Luke 10:30-37).

The absence of "literalism" doesn't negate the importance of the command.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Acts 17:26And(G) he made from one man every nation of mankind to live(H) on all the face of the earth,(I) having determined allotted periods and(J) the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Hebrews 4:4 (King James Version)

4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Of course the Darwinist interpretation denies this verse:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

There is no "Darwinist" interpretation of the Bible. There are sound interpretations and there are unsound interpretations of the Bible.

A "sound interpretation" takes into account the fact that both the Bible's message is real and the world around us is real. The Bible's message is to impact the lives of people in this real world.

Creating a "just pretend" fantasy world will not impact people in the real world.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

When God said

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.

You are, however, unable to correctly use commas. But yeah, go ahead with your memorized dozens of impossibilities. I'll wait.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

When God said

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You are, however, unable to correctly use commas. But yeah, go ahead with your memorized dozens of impossibilities. I'll wait.

Yeah really. coadie, help your readers a bit. I missed some important things that you said here.

This is not a contest. This is a discussion. If you need time to type it out - take the time. I'm not going to boast about a "victory" just because you didn't respond within 5 minutes of my last post.

And, we did the "quote from memory thing" remember? None of your examples were valid and you failed to answer what I posted about showing several clear examples of biological evolution.

For example... what about this "four chambered heart" thing that you just brought up again? You said that there was "no way" that it could have evolved from "simpler" hearts like the amphibians. Right now my nephew is being held up in prayer in several Apostolic churches because he has essentially a three chambered heart.

The cause of this birth defect is fairly well know and it involves the suppression and expression of various enzymes as described in the links I gave you. By "the roll of the dice" this little guy suffers from something that could have afflicted any one of the rest of us. It was random chance involving the expression of a gene during fetal development.

Please respond to that. Take your time. Take a few days, it's no big deal. We also covet your prayers.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Well, "literally" there was already "light." That's all a plant needs in that regard. And with regard to "heat" - there would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.

Here's a stumper for you though:

Genesis 1:25-27, says that humans were created after the animals. It also clearly states that both the man and the woman were created simultaneously.
Yet, Genesis 2:18-22, very clearly states that a human being was created first, then the animals and finally the woman.

So, literally, which is it?

God doesn't play word games son!

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You made up the "simultaneously" part.

that is an attempt for dishonesty.

When people practice darwinistic manipulation of Genesis 1 and two, they insert their own words and meanings.

Question for Pelthais.

Give us the scripture and verse that in your Darwinist view is the first verse that is litterally true as written with no need for "interpretation"
When people fall under the spell of a non Christian biology class, they jump on the Darwinist band wagon.

There is no "stumper" for people that do flow charts.
Again, there is for people that castigate God's scriptures and play word games. They think they have a "gotcha"

You made another dishonest claim in reference to heat. God doesn't follow your presuppositions.

would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.

You are not all knowing and in your imagination think there would have been too much heat.




The agenda for darwinists to pound on the innerancy of the Word in the bible from Genesis 1:1 and onward to to take away from the authority of God.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And it was so

When a castigator of scripture attacks the authenticity of the word in Genesis, one of the code words is the use the word "literal" a lot. It is often associated with a bogus word definition.

and it was so.

Every thing they twist and change they are saying it was NOT so. They claim to know better hiow it really was.

[coadie]

God smacks down Job.

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Evolutionism is Not science. Sciences is "observable"

The crackpot religion of Darwinsim didn't observe anything in creation but pounce on the bible to twist it to how they think it should make sense to support their dogma./

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

When the castigators come out, the say you can't take this litterally and it surely was NOT so.