Evolution

[StR0be]

But there is evidence, hard evidence. It is just a few feet beneath us. All man's existence is there from stone age through to bronze and iron age to the present time. Hard evidence in the form of all human remains. It can be dated to less than 10, 000 years of man's existence on earth. All the tools he has developed, his weaponry, it's all there.

Evolutionists just choose to ignore it.

They have bored MILES down into the earth desperately seeking to find evidence that goes beyond the stone age but they can find none, they spend trillions of tax dollars.

They behave like the detective who finds a body in a room with a dagger in it's back and immediately rules out murder. Now he has to develop some fantastic theory as to how the body got there with a dagger in it's back, by ruling out murder the possibilities are endless and fantastic.

There is also soft evidence.

In the 17th century there were just 5 million people living in Great Britain, in 1066 at the time of the conquest there were less than 1 million. This is the same in every other nation. Today there are nearly 80 million living in Britain. So by a process of reverse multiplication it is plain to see that mankind has descended from just 2 people and spread out all over the world from one central place ... they say Africa, I believe the Middle East.

These are hard facts.

Have you actually looked into the answers to any of your questions? They are pretty easy to find with a simple Google search.
Could it be that it is people like you who are choosing to ignore the evidence?

 

[PC123]

Just to be clear, the theory of evolution does not state that life on Earth started with two humans.

As regards the missing links, what do you mean?

That's not what I said or meant...
It begins the history of man with two humans doesn't it?

As for the missing links I meant exactly what I said... Their fake... Recreations from imaginative artists with an atheist incentive. What's her name again, Amy or Mary... What a joke... It was just a couple of bones they found and had to modify to make it fit...

Or pitman. A hoax

One of the biggest dilemma of evolution is this common ancestor idea... The evidence supporting that is weak at best

In fact dinosaurs are fake... At least some of them anyway. Maybe most of them. The result of eager palaeontologist looking for such mythical creatures

 

[Gideon300]

Do you believe the creation took longer than seven 24 hour periods? How do you define "day" in the creation story?



The method of creation is not defined. The term "creation" does not preclude evolution. Are there steps that lead up to these kinds?



We run into the dilemma of how to define kinds. Are tigers and lions different kinds? What is a liger or tigon in that case? A new kind? Evolution theory basically states that from a "kind" can eventually specialise into "sub-kinds" that can't interbreed with each other (without medical intervention). If sub-kinds can form, how can we be so sure that the current "kinds" we see aren't also "sub-kinds" of common ancestral kinds? What are the fundamental kinds that all life comes from?

When Noah took two of each kind on the ark, were giants counted as their own kind as a type of beast that creepeth the earth? Or did giants (such as King Og) descent from Noah's family? Where did the giants come from after the flood? Either this is an example of sub-kinds forming, or there were two giants on Noah's ark (which in itself is fascinating if that were the case).



Are we talking about Genesis or Jeremiah?



Evolution can be a method of creation. In Genesis 1, God could have snapped everything into existence in an instant, but instead there is a pattern, form, and method that is described. When I make bread, the yeast is doing the job I intended for it. The recipe that I set in motion becomes the desired product. A similar consideration is present for how God might create things: put the ingredients into position and reap at the predetermined time (and adjust or intervene at His leisure). There is nothing to say that evolution was not the creation method. From dust (and whatever microscopic life was present in that dust), to a form, to the breath of the Spirit, Adam was brought to life.

Consider the passage you selected from Job:

"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." - Job 40:15 KJV

This passage says that Job was created.

"After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth." - Job 3:1

This passage says that Job was born.

Job was born, but he was also created. The natural birth was the method of creation. God didn't say to Job "I made your kind", He said to Job "I made you". And what a beautiful message that is. The loving will of God works through the natural world to create, right down to person by person.

Evolution guided by God is internally consistent with scripture, it only requires a figurative interpretation of Genesis. The book of Job support the idea of naturalistic methods being used by God as a tool for creation.

Nope. To create means to bring something into existence. Go get a pile of wood, leave it as long as you like and see what happens. It will likely rot away, but it is never going to turn into a tree. So how do you explain the differences between man, who is unique, and the apes from which we supposedly descended? If we are advanced apes, sin is meaningless. How did a animal driven by instinct become a self conscious, God conscious being that has a conscience? Man has a spirit, unlike the rest of the creation. No one puts an ape under human law. It does what it does because of its nature.

Every human being is created in the image of God. The animals are not. God's way was to create Adam, form Eve from Adam's substance (a rib) and commission him to reproduce. You don't get cows from humans because reproduction by definition is to repeat what is there.

God tells us that He created man in His image. How can you possibly get evolution out of that? Did God evolve from a monkey? I mcan understand unbelievers grasping at the evolutionary straw. But Christians? Even before I was saved, evolution made no sense to me. I was certainly taught it at school. I went to the Natural History Museum in London, a temple of evolutionary worship. Still not convinced.

 

[Gideon300]

That's not what I said or meant...
It begins the history of man with two humans doesn't it?

As for the missing links I meant exactly what I said... Their fake... Recreations from imaginative artists with an atheist incentive. What's her name again, Amy or Mary... What a joke... It was just a couple of bones they found and had to modify to make it fit...

Or pitman. A hoax

One of the biggest dilemma of evolution is this common ancestor idea... The evidence supporting that is weak at best

In fact dinosaurs are fake... At least some of them anyway. Maybe most of them. The result of eager palaeontologist looking for such mythical creatures

You do no favours to the truth of God's creation by mocking paleontology. The fact is that there are fossils of amazing creatures, large and small. Dismissing them as fakes just gives evolutionists ammunition to condemn Christians. Yes, there have been attempts to deceive people with fossils and some have been fakes. But some who call themselves Christians have faked evidence of Noah's ark and lied about supposed evidence for where Israel crossed the Red Sea. That does not mean that Noah's Ark did not exist or that Israel did not cross the Red Sea without getting wet.

 

[Jocund]

Nope. To create means to bring something into existence.

Job was born and Job was created. How do you explain this creation other than by the use of a natural process of birth?

Go get a pile of wood, leave it as long as you like and see what happens. It will likely rot away, but it is never going to turn into a tree.

"For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." - Luke 3:8b

Are you denying the ability for God to make a pile of wood into a tree? I say this because your remark seems to be about abiogensis, which a God guided evolution answers.

So how do you explain the differences between man, who is unique, and the apes from which we supposedly descended? If we are advanced apes, sin is meaningless. How did a animal driven by instinct become a self conscious, God conscious being that has a conscience? Man has a spirit, unlike the rest of the creation. No one puts an ape under human law. It does what it does because of its nature.

The dust (microbial life) was formed into the perfected vessel for the soul. At the point the form was true, the Spirit entered. Man didn't exist until the Spirit had been introduced to the form.

Every human being is created in the image of God. The animals are not. God's way was to create Adam, form Eve from Adam's substance (a rib) and commission him to reproduce. You don't get cows from humans because reproduction by definition is to repeat what is there.

I think you are still hung up on the idea of evolution being random instead of guided by God.

There are different interpretations of "image of God", it can mean: a physical likeness, a spiritual likeness, or both.

God tells us that He created man in His image. How can you possibly get evolution out of that? Did God evolve from a monkey?

Did children of Abraham come from rocks? No, but a rock could be remade into a child of Abraham. Before the form and life of man was finalized, it was not yet man. If I make a statue of something, it does not mean that the thing I capture in image was also originally from a rock.

 

[Unearthed]

That's not what I said or meant...
It begins the history of man with two humans doesn't it?

No, evolution does not begin with two humans.
I understood perfectly what you mean, but you're wrong.

As for the missing links I meant exactly what I said... Their fake... Recreations from imaginative artists with an atheist incentive. What's her name again, Amy or Mary... What a joke... It was just a couple of bones they found and had to modify to make it fit...

Or pitman. A hoax

One of the biggest dilemma of evolution is this common ancestor idea... The evidence supporting that is weak at best

In fact dinosaurs are fake... At least some of them anyway. Maybe most of them. The result of eager palaeontologist looking for such mythical creatures

I have no idea what this missing link thing is about.

 

[Mark47Oz]

You do no favours to the truth of God's creation by mocking paleontology. The fact is that there are fossils of amazing creatures, large and small. Dismissing them as fakes just gives evolutionists ammunition to condemn Christians. Yes, there have been attempts to deceive people with fossils and some have been fakes. But some who call themselves Christians have faked evidence of Noah's ark and lied about supposed evidence for where Israel crossed the Red Sea. That does not mean that Noah's Ark did not exist or that Israel did not cross the Red Sea without getting wet.

I agree with you. You can't deny hard evidence.

So. How do we as Christians reconcile this with the Bible?

Well, firstly I question the great flood. Surely if the flood occurred there would be lots of evidence of creatures lost. Oh.... Wait..... There is!

Noah lived somewhere around the middle East and he supposedly saved 2 of every creature. Yeah I'm not sure sure about that. Australia and New Zealand alone have some of the most unique wildlife on the planet. Pretty sure old Noah didn't pack kangaroos and Kiwis, cassowary and moas on his boat.

You could have filled a boat the size described in the Bible with creatures from Australia alone. Let alone the rest of the world.

So, is the Bible wrong? No. It's just describing an event in Noah's life and his immediate area.

But wasn't the flood global?

Yes it was. Ancient societies the world over have legends of it.

So I therefore hypothesize that the fossil record is mainly from a great cataclysm. And said cataclysm is closely related to the great flood.

 

[Dino246]

Pretty sure old Noah didn't pack kangaroos and Kiwis, cassowary and moas on his boat.

You could have filled a boat the size described in the Bible with creatures from Australia alone. Let alone the rest of the world.

You're making two errors: firstly, you're clearly assuming the size of the ark without actually investigating it; and secondly, you're assuming that Noah had two of every species rather than two of every kind. Assertion without evidence is a common flaw among Christians, and one which leads to Christians being thought of as ignorant. Just because we have understanding of salvation does not mean we have understanding about all things.

 

[Mark47Oz]

You're making two errors: firstly, you're clearly assuming the size of the ark without actually investigating it; and secondly, you're assuming that Noah had two of every species rather than two of every kind. Assertion without evidence is a common flaw among Christians, and one which leads to Christians being thought of as ignorant. Just because we have understanding of salvation does not mean we have understanding about all things.

And you're making the mistake of forcing scripture to assert your view. I've seen the doco on that ark replica in the USA.

Question for you. If what you believe is true, how did

A) Noah gather all these animals given that places like Australia and New Zealand are far removed from the middle East and are separated by ocean?

B) How were they returned after the flood without leaving trace of them being in Turkey where the ark is believed to had rested?

If I subscribe to what you're saying, I can go along with all the animals from Europe, Asia, Africa because these three continents are joined by land. The Americas had a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska at one point so maybe all their animals walked up to the ark as well.

But a kangaroo can't swim. So how do you propose it got there? The Bible makes no mention of angels air lifting the creatures to Noah. We've always be taught he walked them on 2 by 2.

Just food for thought for you.

 

[StR0be]

Every human being is created in the image of God. The animals are not. God's way was to create Adam, form Eve from Adam's substance (a rib) and commission him to reproduce. You don't get cows from humans because reproduction by definition is to repeat what is there.

God tells us that He created man in His image. How can you possibly get evolution out of that? Did God evolve from a monkey? I mcan understand unbelievers grasping at the evolutionary straw. But Christians? Even before I was saved, evolution made no sense to me. I was certainly taught it at school. I went to the Natural History Museum in London, a temple of evolutionary worship. Still not convinced.

The idea of man having been made in the image of God is of fundamental importance to the topic of Genesis yet no one can explain what this even means.
Can we stop for a moment and deal with this? How could Adam and Eve have been created in the image of God and yet not have had the knowledge of good and evil? Why were they naked? What does it even mean to be in the image of God? In what sense are we in the image of God?
I don't think we yet in the image of God and will not be until Jesus returns to claim His kingdom.

 

[StR0be]

And you're making the mistake of forcing scripture to assert your view. I've seen the doco on that ark replica in the USA.

Question for you. If what you believe is true, how did

A) Noah gather all these animals given that places like Australia and New Zealand are far removed from the middle East and are separated by ocean?

B) How were they returned after the flood without leaving trace of them being in Turkey where the ark is believed to had rested?

If I subscribe to what you're saying, I can go along with all the animals from Europe, Asia, Africa because these three continents are joined by land. The Americas had a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska at one point so maybe all their animals walked up to the ark as well.

But a kangaroo can't swim. So how do you propose it got there? The Bible makes no mention of angels air lifting the creatures to Noah. We've always be taught he walked them on 2 by 2.

Just food for thought for you.

How about this for an idea?
I think we can probably agree that the earth mentioned in Genesis 1 is the same earth that was flooded. If so what about that the earth it was describing didn't mean the entire planet but only an area somewhere? Would that solve the problem?
There is evidence that there was a major flood in the middle east at about that time and no accepted evidence that any global flood has ever taken place.

 

[Mark47Oz]

How about this for an idea?
I think we can probably agree that the earth mentioned in Genesis 1 is the same earth that was flooded. If so what about that the earth it was describing didn't mean the entire planet but only an area somewhere? Would that solve the problem?
There is evidence that there was a major flood in the middle east at about that time and no accepted evidence that any global flood has ever taken place.

That's what I said in my first reply 🤣

So yes.

And as an FYI, a Russian researcher did parallel studies of ancient texts - Chinese, Indian, middle eastern etc etc. And he discovered something remarkable. There are multiple recorded events who's dates are different, but the times between them are similar. And the great flood is one of them! So there is evidence of this flood being quite large.

As for the evolution theory. My take on that is very simple. They don't call it the missing link for nothing. It's missing because it's missing. In other words we can't find it and therefore at this point in our knowledge and understanding while the evidence points to a pattern, it's not complete. And science is about data backing up observation, not assumption.

Therefore the evolution of man from apes is not yet proven.

The Bible is not exactly known for cataloging every type of animal that ever existed. Nor does it say that apes similar to humans didn't roam the earth. All it says is that Adam was created in human form from dust.

 

[StR0be]

That's what I said in my first reply 🤣

So yes.

And as an FYI, a Russian researcher did parallel studies of ancient texts - Chinese, Indian, middle eastern etc etc. And he discovered something remarkable. There are multiple recorded events who's dates are different, but the times between them are similar. And the great flood is one of them! So there is evidence of this flood being quite large.

As for the evolution theory. My take on that is very simple. They don't call it the missing link for nothing. It's missing because it's missing. In other words we can't find it and therefore at this point in our knowledge and understanding while the evidence points to a pattern, it's not complete. And science is about data backing up observation, not assumption.

Therefore the evolution of man from apes is not yet proven.

The Bible is not exactly known for cataloging every type of animal that ever existed. Nor does it say that apes similar to humans didn't roam the earth. All it says is that Adam was created in human form from dust.

Fantastic! Sorry old chap, I made a mistake and posted a reply to the wrong comment, I too meant to be replying to the same comment you were. My sincere apologies.
Your point, however, about missing links has been dealt with time and time again by scientists. There will always be "missing links" the gaps will just get smaller and smaller with each discovery. Proof is not even being sought, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, even the evolution of mankind from "apes". But none of it in any way contradicts that it was all orchestrated by God. It seems to me that that is how He must do His creating (of living things at least).

 

[StR0be]

All it says is that Adam was created in human form from dust.

BINGO! But it doesn't say that Adam was the first human. There were already humans in existence when Adam was created!

 

[Unearthed]

Fantastic! Sorry old chap, I made a mistake and posted a reply to the wrong comment, I too meant to be replying to the same comment you were. My sincere apologies.
Your point, however, about missing links has been dealt with time and time again by scientists. There will always be "missing links" the gaps will just get smaller and smaller with each discovery. Proof is not even being sought, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, even the evolution of mankind from "apes". But none of it in any way contradicts that it was all orchestrated by God. It seems to me that that is how He must do His creating (of living things at least).

Somebody else mentioned this missing link thing, and I had not heard of it previously.
I had to search for it on Google and as far as I can tell the "missing link" theory is a proposed problem with the theory of evolution. It asserts that the remains of a creature that links humans with apes hasn't been found.

I genuinely don't know any more than what I have written above, so sorry if I'm slightly off in my description.

Assuming my understanding is correct, there are several issues with this missing link theory but one major one is:

Evolution is a discrete process, not a continuous one.
The reason for this is that as an animal gives birth to offspring, there is a discrete number of animals (2). There is no animal 'between' the offspring and its parents.
The reason I mention this is because I can imagine that if a creature was found that 'links' humans with apes, the people who came up with the theory would then point out that there is still a gap.....or they might even say that there are now two gaps.

It's a complete red herring.

 

[StR0be]

You're making two errors: firstly, you're clearly assuming the size of the ark without actually investigating it; and secondly, you're assuming that Noah had two of every species rather than two of every kind. Assertion without evidence is a common flaw among Christians, and one which leads to Christians being thought of as ignorant. Just because we have understanding of salvation does not mean we have understanding about all things.

Ok, sir, I see you have disagreed with my comment but have posted no reason as to why.
No problem, but it would be good to discuss it.
If Adam was the first human you need to answer these questions:
1. What did it mean for Eve to become the "mother of all living"? This applies even if you accept the NIV translation, why would she only become eligible for her name when she did even if it does only mean she "would become the mother of all the living"? Would she not have been that anyway?
2. When Cain killed Able and was sent away from the presence of God why would he have been worried about people finding him and killing him? He found a wife and built a city but no one else had been sent away from the presence of God so who did he marry and why build a city?

 

[PC123]

No, evolution does not begin with two humans.
I understood perfectly what you mean, but you're wrong.

Again that's not what I said...
Read it properly

the history of man begins with two humans...

Not evolution, that starts with a common ancestor like I said...

I have no idea what this missing link thing is about.

Well. Never heard of the hoaxes or the missing link... You know very little indeed and need to learn much more

I hope God guides you out of error and to the truth like he did with many including myself

 

[PC123]

You do no favours to the truth of God's creation by mocking paleontology. The fact is that there are fossils of amazing creatures, large and small. Dismissing them as fakes just gives evolutionists ammunition to condemn Christians. Yes, there have been attempts to deceive people with fossils and some have been fakes. But some who call themselves Christians have faked evidence of Noah's ark and lied about supposed evidence for where Israel crossed the Red Sea. That does not mean that Noah's Ark did not exist or that Israel did not cross the Red Sea without getting wet.

I'm not mocking palentology...
I'm being critical of it... Big difference...

They are frauds... Atheists with an agenda... No such fossils where ever found without such people looking to undermine the word of God...

This generation have been sorely mislead by what they think is science

 

[PC123]

I'm 43 and I grew up believing in the theory of evolution and the big bang theory... It pushed me away from God for 10 years and took another 10 years to find God...

Therefore I despise these lies... Lies of Satan... I uncovered the whole lie and whole truth...

Lucky I went to university and did real science subjects connected to engineering... That helped me understand the scientific method which allowed me to find the faults in these philisophical theories

Now... For people younger than me, they are being brainwashed even more than my generation... They don't actually know what science is now... They don't know the difference between hard science and soft science which is more like philosophy... They don't even know about the missing link or the frauds now...

Geez...

Education has been taken over by the evil one and he is pushing kids away from God

 

[StR0be]

Again that's not what I said...
Read it properly

the history of man begins with two humans...

Not evolution, that starts with a common ancestor like I said...



Well. Never heard of the hoaxes or the missing link... You know very little indeed and need to learn much more

I hope God guides you out of error and to the truth like he did with many including myself

I think you're talking about the Piltdown Man?
This is another topic that has been debunked over and over again and it's not worth repeating that here, so I urge you just to do some Googling on the issue.
If you can't even get the name right (you said "pitman") it doesn't bode well for the rest of your knowledge on the subject.