Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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

You're starting to go off the tracks again, but I will ignore it. In answer to your question, there is no Scripture that doesn't require "interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20-21, implies this).

In fact, all human language requires some "interpretation" to be correctly understood. You already know this and if we weren't arguing the point right now, you might even have been the one to bring it up. But, you box yourself into your own angry little corner. Lighten up a bit. Give yourself a break.

There's no such thing as a "non-Christian biology class." There is only accurate information and inaccurate information in biology. Biology studies natural life, not the things of God. If you want Theology, that's a different classroom.

I do not have a "Darwinist view" of the Bible. My methodology there is far more ancient than Victorian England or even the days of your Bishop Ussher.

My "Darwinism" is simply a facet of of understanding the natural world. To be more correct, my understanding of Biology involves what is commonly called the "Neo-Darwinist Synthesis." This is what you would learn in a Biology class at your local community college if you wanted to enroll and study it for yourself.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by kristian's_mom

Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?

.

I will comment on your question directly. About 5 years ago, most non Christian Phd's I know stopped making the claim that life evolved from non life. They just claim there was life, it was simple and they are sure it was not created by God. Then they start with life and evolution takes over from there with claims of common ancestry. All life came from a single original life form.

This is known as the theory of abiogenesis.

Why should Christians jump on the evolution band wagon which completely refutes itself every few years? I could write a book of claims by evolutionists that are in old textbooks that have been removed by them or should have been. The Piltdown man was a hoax and still showed up in testbooks for years. There are still books being printed that claim miller Urey successfuully proved abiogenesis in the lab which he didn't and we all know he didn't

We do not need to re write the bible.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

God smacks down Job.

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

I've got a better question for you, though. Just where are those "foundations of the earth?" Literally, where are they?

Originally Posted by coadie

Evolutionism is Not science. Sciences is "observable"

Then you have a ready answer for the example of observed speciation that I gave earlier? The horse-donkey-mule problem? You ignored that. Please go back and answer the questions.

Originally Posted by coadie

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./

Charles Darwin never even addressed the Bible in his published works. How can you say he "attacked it?"

The man was clearly suffering from melancholy in his later years. Many historians have said that it was the result of the death of his daughter. Yet, if he had properly understood evolution and the genetic factors involved, he might have avoided marrying his first cousin and the daughter's congenital defects may have been avoided. Or not.

But Darwin himself isn't guilty of what you've charged here.

Originally Posted by coadie

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.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by kristian's_mom

Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?

What do you think the scriptures mean by this:

Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I reconcile it that the writers of the Bible had no idea of evolution, had no idea how any of this world came to be. Therefore, they imagined it as best they could. Thus, the perceived concise creation process some believe today.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I will comment on your question directly. About 5 years ago, most non Christian Phd's I know stopped making the claim that life evolved from non life. They just claim there was life, it was simple and they are sure it was not created by God. Then they start with life and evolution takes over from there with claims of common ancestry. All life came from a single original life form.

This is known as the theory of abiogenesis.

Why should Christians jump on the evolution band wagon which completely refutes itself every few years? I could write a book of claims by evolutionists that are in old textbooks that have been removed by them or should have been. The Piltdown man was a hoax and still showed up in testbooks for years. There are still books being printed that claim miller Urey successfuully proved abiogenesis in the lab which he didn't and we all know he didn't

We do not need to re write the bible.

The "Piltdown Man" hoax was uncovered by Darwinian evolutionists. In fact, most scientists were skeptical of the "find" from the very beginning for a number of reasons.

First of all - a real hominid with those features should not have ever been found in Britain. It just didn't fit the "Evolutionary Model." Next, the chemical tests of the "jaw" showed it to be rather recently deceased (in geologic terms). Scientists disproved the thing, sort of like Mythbusters on television.

Meanwhile, "Christians" were (and still are) attempting to disprove evolution by carving tracks into the stone along the Paluxy River in Texas and misreading other smeared prints in the same area.

With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment - it was hardly a failure. It was never intended to "create life." Rather, it was intended to find ways that complex organic molecules (the "building blocks of life") might arise naturally.

In this regard it was a complete success.

The only "problem" was that Miller postulated a chemically "reducing" environment (little or no free oxygen). Science wasn't certain about that point then. The existence of the red bed iron formations gives evidence that a reducing environment did exist on earth at one time and that this environment was dramatically altered by the introduction of free oxygen by living organisms.

So, Miller-Urey suffers some misunderstandings due to the advancement of science and understanding. In the end, it did show how under certain conditions complex organic compounds could be formed. These conditions would typically exist either off our world or at a time when our world did not have the current oxygen rich atmosphere.

Lo and behold! We find these same compound that Miller created in comets and meteorites. We also find them in deep sea volcanic vents where the sulfur rich environment creates "a world of its own."

[pelathais]

I've gotta go ... thanks for the fun coadie. Remember -

1) Answer the "creation of horses, donkeys and mules" question. This must fit within a framework of the rigid "interpretation" of "after their kind" in Genesis 1.

2) Answer the "three/four chambered heart" conundrum that you brought up yourself. Respond to the information concerning vertebrate heart evolution that I provided.

3) Please remember my family and myself in your prayers.

Take care, Bro.

(Hiya Twisp! I "see" you).

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by pelathais

(Hiya Twisp! I "see" you).

Boo Hiss!

Lol, I saw your reply in the Mosque thread, not ignoring it. It just takes me longer to respond than most. That and I tend to avoid the internets on the weekend. lol.

[BroGary]

The Luciferian globalists promote the deception of evolution, Satan has been trying to get people to doubt God's Word since the garden of Eden. High level freemasonry acknowledges Lucifer as the one they serve, and it is interesting how many high level freemasons have been involved in promoting evolution.

Here is an excerpt from an article I found:

Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory.

In short, Erasmus Darwin was the true pioneer of the theory we know of as the theory of evolution that has been propagandized throughout the world over the past 150 years.

Where did Erasmus Darwin discover the idea of evolution? Where did his interest in this subject come from?

After a thorough search for the answer to this question, we discover the interesting fact that Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization.

He was the master of the famous Canongate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland.102 Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion.103 That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.

Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin's father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge.104 For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin's views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.

Finally, Darwin appeared at a stage when the long struggle had begun in Europe to supposedly destroy faith in God and religion, replace it with the naturalist philosophy and a humanist model for human life. The most significant force behind this struggle was not this or that thinker, but the Masonic organization, of which so many thinkers, ideologues and political leaders were members.

[BroGary]

Evolution and the Bible do not agree.

If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.

Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.

Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by kristian's_mom

Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?

What do you think the scriptures mean by this:

Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Many Christians accept evolution (theistic evolution they call it). It's certainly not a matter of one's salvation or even heresy. There's many unknowns that we are free to speculate.

My primary concern with brothers who espouse one of the views of theistic evolution is the idea of direct creation. I believe direct creation to be essential for the whole idea of Imago Dei and to fit Gen 1:26.

But it's unfortunate when we create dogma in areas where there is such uncertainty.