Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!

  1. #1
    jade84116
    Guest

    Post Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!


  2. #2
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Why does genesis and evolution contradict? Genesis is just a simple story on how the world was created not a text book guide.

  3. #3
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Greetings TB,

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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

  5. #5
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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?

  11. #11
    jade84116
    Guest

    Smile That's Debatable

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    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!
    Last edited by jade84116; 03-23-2009 at 03:19 PM.

  12. #12
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    AllyManderson
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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".

  14. #14
    AllyManderson
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    PostTribber
    Guest

    Default God vs Chuck

    "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)

  16. #16
    NoneOfTheAbove
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    creatolution
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostTribber View Post
    "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.

  18. #18
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creatolution View Post
    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...

  19. #19
    NoneOfTheAbove
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    Proof?



  20. #20
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!
    Oh, so you're saying the Bible is wrong, then, are you?

    I'll agree.

    TRiG.

  21. #21
    NoneOfTheAbove
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Greetings,
    The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.

    If Darwinís 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 didnít 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 canít find any.

    Notes:
    [1] On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
    [2] Ibid

  23. #23
    sunofmysoul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Greetings,
    The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.

    If Darwinís 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 didnít 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 canít 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

  24. #24
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default Lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRiG View Post
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •