View Full Version : Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!
jade84116
03-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp for proof!:)
tealblue
03-10-2009, 03:32 AM
Why does genesis and evolution contradict? Genesis is just a simple story on how the world was created not a text book guide.
disciple
03-10-2009, 05:13 AM
Greetings TB,
Why does genesis and evolution contradict? Genesis is just a simple story on how the world was created not a text book guide.
Because evolution suggests that man came from a souless brute beast and Genesis states that God created man full grown and perfect and in His own image. Remember there was no death in the world until man (not an ape) sinned. Evolution by it nature needs death for creatures to evolve, long periods of time with lots of death. There was no death before Adam sinned.
Since when is Gods word just a simple story? The Bible is not a guide? Perhaps you mis-spoke.
Trinity
03-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Remember there was no death in the world until man (not an ape) sinned. Evolution by it nature needs death for creatures to evolve, long periods of time with lots of death. There was no death before Adam sinned.
Since when is Gods word just a simple story? The Bible is not a guide? Perhaps you mis-spoke.
I am feeling sorry to see apes or any other animals die just because the first man was a sinner (there is something that seems unfair, at first sight). On the other hand, if there was no death on earth, we would have not enough space for the expansion of all forms of lives on this planet. Imagine that all rats, cats, dogs or frogs would have never died. Even the insects and the trees. To talk pragmatically, to be dying in a material world is a necessity. Certainly inside an ecosystem as, our bleu planet.
Trinity
tealblue
03-11-2009, 12:34 AM
Greetings TB,
Because evolution suggests that man came from a souless brute beast and Genesis states that God created man full grown and perfect and in His own image. Remember there was no death in the world until man (not an ape) sinned. Evolution by it nature needs death for creatures to evolve, long periods of time with lots of death. There was no death before Adam sinned.
Since when is Gods word just a simple story? The Bible is not a guide? Perhaps you mis-spoke.
The book of Genesis is full of symbolism. You can't possible understand every aspect of it. The basic element is that God created everything. If he created us through processes that he created then why is this such an issue.
disciple
03-11-2009, 09:13 AM
The book of Genesis is full of symbolism. You can't possible understand every aspect of it. The basic element is that God created everything. If he created us through processes that he created then why is this such an issue.
Greetings TB,
Symbolisim has nothing to do with this point, if man evolved then there would have to have been death before this "process" was complete.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Rom 5:12
"For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead."
1 Cor 15:21
There is no symbolisim is these New Testament verses, straight forward, no death before fully created man sinned. No death, evolution is not possible.
Why not take God at His word, after all He is much more reliable than Darwin.
tealblue
03-12-2009, 07:12 AM
Genesis says that God created man. Does it say how he made man. Out of thin air or thru his natural process. Its been argued that death is refering to spiritual death.
disciple
03-12-2009, 08:17 AM
Genesis says that God created man. Does it say how he made man. Out of thin air or thru his natural process. Its been argued that death is refering to spiritual death.
Well TB, I respect your right to your own opinion. It seems in your zeal to line up with the Vatican you dismiss the obvious truth of God's word. Read Genesis again and try to find where evolution fits in. It dosen't.
tealblue
03-13-2009, 12:42 AM
Well TB, I respect your right to your own opinion. It seems in your zeal to line up with the Vatican you dismiss the obvious truth of God's word. Read Genesis again and try to find where evolution fits in. It dosen't.
Actually the vatican gives alot of la***ude on whether or not we accept evolution or not. I accept it because of all the evidence that points to it. Genesis even tells us that all the besats were formed out of the ground. Even so both creation accounts don't even line up.
IncitingRiots
03-13-2009, 11:57 AM
Remember there was no death in the world until man (not an ape) sinned.
Really?! Then how would you explain the deaths of all the other species of life that lived on this planet before man existed?
jade84116
03-23-2009, 02:32 PM
Really?! Then how would you explain the deaths of all the other species of life that lived on this planet before man existed?
Actually, before is debated!:)
IncitingRiots
03-24-2009, 10:04 AM
Actually, before is debated!:)
No, I don't think there is any debate about the existence of other forms of life before the existence of man. There is just too much overwhelming evidence for there to be any (logical) debate what so ever.
AllyManderson
04-10-2009, 06:43 PM
Greetings TB,
Because evolution suggests that man came from a souless brute beast and Genesis states that God created man full grown and perfect and in His own image. Remember there was no death in the world until man (not an ape) sinned. Evolution by it nature needs death for creatures to evolve, long periods of time with lots of death. There was no death before Adam sinned.
Since when is Gods word just a simple story? The Bible is not a guide? Perhaps you mis-spoke.
I disagree. As the creation story does not claim about man that "And God saw that it was good".
AllyManderson
04-10-2009, 06:45 PM
No, I don't think there is any debate about the existence of other forms of life before the existence of man. There is just too much overwhelming evidence for there to be any (logical) debate what so ever.
The Bible says that there were 5 whole stages of creation before man. There is no scope for Christian debate to suggest that man was around first.
PostTribber
05-03-2009, 10:27 AM
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Joshua 24:15)
NoneOfTheAbove
08-26-2009, 01:53 PM
Actually, before is debated!:)
It IS debated, but not in scientific circles. The consilience of astronomical, radiometric, geological, biological and other evidence places the age of the earth and the sequence of appearance of various physical and biological forms beyond reasonable debate. :)
creatolution
08-27-2009, 09:22 PM
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Genesis 1:26)
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Joshua 24:15)
In what form are we trying to say God formed man? Was it a physical form or spiritual. I believe it to be spiritual as God is not a physical being.
Is it not possible that God breathed life, or a soul into the first man once evolution had taken this flesh to that point?
I see evolution, as the awesome instrument of God's hand. I try to reconcile what I know of the natural world with Genesis and I see harmony. Not contextually but rationally. When God handed down the account of creation to Moses what was more important, how He created the natural order of things or the simple fact that He did? If He were to have outlined all that went into creation most if not all of the Israelites standing before Moses would have thought he was crazy and fled back to Egypt.
And can we say there is only one type of book in the Bible? Should we lend as much credence to say, Song of Solomon as we do...John? I don't think so.
Sorry to pick on you Postribber for my first post here but the verses you quoted struck a cord with me. The last one especially. I try to serve God in all I do. I fail often and that is no secret. But one should not question my failure as a lack of love for my God. I see the heavens and I praise Him for His creation. I see the world and it's natural glory and I know there is no denying His glory much less His existence! Knowing and believing evolution was the tool of His awesome creation magnifies His glory. A six day creation, in my mind, minimizes it. It seems like a magic trick.
sunofmysoul
09-01-2009, 08:07 AM
In what form are we trying to say God formed man? Was it a physical form or spiritual. I believe it to be spiritual as God is not a physical being.
Is it not possible that God breathed life, or a soul into the first man once evolution had taken this flesh to that point?
I see evolution, as the awesome instrument of God's hand. I try to reconcile what I know of the natural world with Genesis and I see harmony. Not contextually but rationally. When God handed down the account of creation to Moses what was more important, how He created the natural order of things or the simple fact that He did? If He were to have outlined all that went into creation most if not all of the Israelites standing before Moses would have thought he was crazy and fled back to Egypt.
And can we say there is only one type of book in the Bible? Should we lend as much credence to say, Song of Solomon as we do...John? I don't think so.
Sorry to pick on you Postribber for my first post here but the verses you quoted struck a cord with me. The last one especially. I try to serve God in all I do. I fail often and that is no secret. But one should not question my failure as a lack of love for my God. I see the heavens and I praise Him for His creation. I see the world and it's natural glory and I know there is no denying His glory much less His existence! Knowing and believing evolution was the tool of His awesome creation magnifies His glory. A six day creation, in my mind, minimizes it. It seems like a magic trick.
wow! awesome post...
thank you for this...:)
NoneOfTheAbove
09-02-2009, 08:11 AM
Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp for proof!:)
Proof? (http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1420/errormessagesrk3.png)
:eek:
Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!Oh, so you're saying the Bible is wrong, then, are you?
I'll agree.
TRiG.:)
NoneOfTheAbove
09-06-2009, 08:01 PM
Oh, so you're saying the Bible is wrong, then, are you?
I'll agree.
TRiG.:)
I'd say it's no more "wrong" than Huckleberry Finn is "wrong". Neither of them is intended to inform about naturalistic phenomena. Both of them speak eloquently to the human condition.
disciple
10-12-2009, 06:43 AM
Greetings,
The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.
If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation. He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology ***uredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same p***age he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.
And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any.
Notes:
[1] On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
[2] Ibid
sunofmysoul
10-12-2009, 07:47 AM
Greetings,
The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.
If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation. He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology ***uredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same p***age he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.
And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any.
Notes:
[1] On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
[2] Ibid
this might be worth a read....for those who are interested
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285180.stm
If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another.Why? Do you intend to die in a flash flood and be buried in an alluvial deposit? It's pretty unusual for dead animals to fossilise, you know.
But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation.They're rare enough, but many more have been found since Darwin's day.
The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.And he was, of course, completely correct. See my previous two points.
Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! ... They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.All too believably, creationists are lying. Again.
And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still cant find any.This is complete and utter nonsense. Ray Comfort is off the wall. Outright lies.
TRiG.:)
disciple
10-13-2009, 05:05 AM
Why? Do you intend to die in a flash flood and be buried in an alluvial deposit? It's pretty unusual for dead animals to fossilise, you know.
They're rare enough, but many more have been found since Darwin's day.
And he was, of course, completely correct. See my previous two points.
All too believably, creationists are lying. Again.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Ray Comfort is off the wall. Outright lies.
TRiG.:)
Really Trig, can you ever make a point without calling people who don't agree with you liars?
disciple
10-13-2009, 06:57 AM
"The Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History is one of the leading centers for paleontological research in the world…The world-cl*** collections include 40 million to 50 million fossil plants, animals and geologic specimens. Also included in the collections are more than 1,500 cataloged specimens of dinosaurs."[1]
So let me understand this. The Smithsonian has millions of fossils, but they have no undisputed transitional forms that clearly prove Darwin was right. They don’t exist. Millions of fossils survived because their conditions were suitable, but transitional forms didn’t survive because their conditions weren’t conducive. Millions of others did, but they didn’t. Why is that? I believe it’s because they didn’t exist in the first place. Darwin was onto something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."[2].
Notes:
[1] "Dinosaur Discoveries in Montana," Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History News, August 20, 2002 .
[2] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters (London: John Murray: 1887), Vol. 2, p. 229 .
You're not a liar, you're just sadly misinformed (misinformed enough to think that Ray Comfort is a credible source: the man's a laughingstock). It's the proffesional creationist organisations who are lying. They do it repeatedly, openly, and unashamedly. They simply make stuff up. All the time. I merely call it as I see it.
TRiG.:)
Millions of fossils survived because their conditions were suitable, but transitional forms didn’t survive because their conditions weren’t conducive. Millions of others did, but they didn’t.I just said that you weren't a liar, you were just misinformed. If you continue on this line, I'll take that back. I think I may be repeating myself here, but it's worth saying again: All forms are transitional forms. The claimed paucity of "transitional forms" is simply made up by creationists. There is no such gap.
Start here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A670213
Make your next stop at http://talkorigins.org/
And then move onto http://books-by-isbn.com/059306173X
As PZ Myers said, This may not change your mind, but at least you'd be forced to develop less asinine arguments.
TRiG.:)
Well TB, I respect your right to your own opinion. It seems in your zeal to line up with the Vatican you dismiss the obvious truth of God's word. Read Genesis again and try to find where evolution fits in. It dosen't.
Look at reality and try to find where a literal interpretation of Genesis fits in. It doesn't.
BTW, if there was no death before Adam, what did T.Rex its teeth and Deinocheirus its claws use for - to slice carrots ? And why do we find crushed bones of smaller species within the bellies of carnosaurs ?
Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp for proof!:)
Scopie's Law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html).
TRiG.:)
Scopie's Law (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html).
TRiG.:)
Cohen's Law.
"The Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History is one of the leading centers for paleontological research in the world…The world-cl*** collections include 40 million to 50 million fossil plants, animals and geologic specimens. Also included in the collections are more than 1,500 cataloged specimens of dinosaurs."[1]
So let me understand this. The Smithsonian has millions of fossils, but they have no undisputed transitional forms that clearly prove Darwin was right.
That's like saying "It is not undisputed that the Earth is not flat".
Anything can be "disputed". However, the existence of transitionals cannot be rationally disputed.
disciple
10-27-2009, 05:21 AM
That's like saying "It is not undisputed that the Earth is not flat".
Anything can be "disputed". However, the existence of transitionals cannot be rationally disputed.
Hello HRG,
Are you saying that it is irrational to want to see real transitional fossils or is it just irrational to disagree with people who believe everything came from nothing.
Hello HRG,
Are you saying that it is irrational to want to see real transitional fossils or is it just irrational to disagree with people who believe everything came from nothing.It's irrational to spout the nonsense that you're spouting.
TRiG.:)
disciple
10-27-2009, 07:50 AM
It's irrational to spout the nonsense that you're spouting.
TRiG.:)
Hello Trig,
As to be expected, your comments are limited to insults or repeating the pseudo-intellectual statements made by those you believe in and trust.
Just so I'm clear Trig, if God didn't create everything where did everything come from?
Sorry. Not in the best form today. I can do rational argument, but I'm not in the mood at the moment. So I'll just point and laugh at your deliberate misunderstandings.
I'll go away and do something productive for a while. I might feel better after.
TRiG.:)
alanmolstad
01-25-2011, 04:48 PM
Hello Trig,
As to be expected, your comments are limited to insults ....
I will never do such things...
But I do not believe there are any real contradictions between Evolution and Genesis...
alanmolstad
05-10-2011, 05:55 AM
Greetings TB,
Because evolution suggests that man came from a souless brute beast and Genesis states that God created man full grown .
I think uyou better drop back and read the Genesis story again...
What does Genesis trace man back to at the start?
compare that to what evolution will trace life back to at the start?
you end up in both evolution and genesis at the same place....."the earth"
alanmolstad
02-10-2015, 09:51 AM
Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp for proof!:)
The link shows you the errors I ran into in Ken Ham's ORIGINS cl***...
I think I should go over the information found at the link and show you guys how its totally in error...
alanmolstad
10-27-2017, 08:31 AM
at the link the wroter posts two lists that are what he thinks evolution teaches and what he also thinks the Bible teaches.
In almost every case the list for what the Bible teaches is in error.
The Bible simply does not teach what the list suggests it teaches...
Therefore the wroter of this link is not really comparing the Bible with evolution, rather he is just comparing evolution with his own invented ideas.
and his ideas are all wrong...
See for yourself - https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/evolution-vs-creation-the-order-of-events-matters/
check it out and come back and tell me where Im wrong!
DrDavidT
12-17-2017, 04:55 PM
how can anyone expect blind, lost, deceived, unredeemed secular scientists can find the truth and know more than God.
There are no contradictions between Gen. 1 & 2
alanmolstad
12-24-2017, 07:30 AM
how can anyone expect blind, lost, deceived, unredeemed secular scientists can find the truth and know more than God.
There are no contradictions between Gen. 1 & 2
I reject that the idea that men of science must be against God,
I reject the idea that when you go to school and learn about things and study this universe that they turns you away from God or the bible..
I think that this idea of attacking men of science is what is driving the best and the brightest people from the church, to our shame.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.