Monday, October 8, 2012

Creation Debate: Part Two- Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity

Here is part two of the Creation Debate series.  I hope you find it helpful!



__________________________________________________________________________________
Z:  If we reinterpret the "six days" of creation into time periods, perhaps, millions of years going on during those, "days" then we see that the scientific point of view, that the earth is old, (once more, that idea doesn’t fit the evidence, and evolution isn’t real science) is completely logical from a Christian standpoint.
___________________________________________________________________________________

You can't believe the Bible and say evolution happened. Six days translating into long periods of time makes no sense at all. It is utterly impossible. Here's something to think about: For one thing, bees supposedly evolved at the same time as flowering plants. This makes sense, right? Well, there's a big problem. There is one of many petrified forests, I think it is in Arizona, and intermixed with the logs, are beehives. These logs were dated to several million years before flowering plants supposedly evolved, and the beehives were dated to the same age! This would mean that bees would have to survive for millions of years before the flowers evolved. This would be a problem for obvious reasons.


Here’s a few more things to think about if each “day” represented millions of years.
If each day was really millions of years, then are we supposed to work for millions of years and then rest for millions of years?
Although light was created on day one, it probably was not very organized light, like what plants need to survive. Plants were created on day three, but the sun was made on day four.
Now here’s the most important one for me: The word used for day in the Hebrew is “yom”. This word although it can sometimes be figurative, always means a literal 24 hour day if used with the words first or second or morning and evening.
And the millions of years per day idea also completely does away with the importance of the Gospel and Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection. This is because evolution depends on death for it to possibly function. (Survival of the fittest.) The Bible says death is the consequence of sin. If man hadn’t evolved (through survival of the fittest) to the point where he could sin, where did death come from? In other words, death would just be an ordinary and necessary part of life, therefore, why did Jesus come? What was the point of his death on the Cross and resurrection if not to rescue us from our sin and consequences of it?


________________________________________________________________________________
Z: I believe that the, big bang really happened and that God created using the slow process of evolution. In other words that, the almighty God created every living species from perhaps a single cell and then perhaps occasionally adding new DNA into animals, created all the diversity that we know today.
_________________________________________________________________________________

If you believe that, then you can have no idea of how many changes it would require to change one animal into another. There would have to be massive amounts of information added. There has never been a mutation observed that added DNA, although plenty have been observed that subtracted or changed previously existing information. The fact is, one animal cannot evolve into another. And this idea is not only incompatible with science, but is also completely unbiblical. The Genesis record says over and over, (in fact it says six times in three verses,) that God made each of the animals “according to its kind”. This means that evolution couldn’t have happened and yet agreed with the Bible, because if there were no “kinds” that were formed right then, then the Bible wouldn’t have said that.

__________________________________________________________________________________
And the apple was signifying sin, in that the entire human population sinned at one time and that was how mankind fell what I basically believe is this statement I got from a very interesting book called, "Perspectives on an evolving creation."
__________________________________________________________________________________


The fruit, (not necessarily an apple) definitely didn’t signify sin. It couldn’t have because the Bible says that God saw His creation, and “it was very good”. If sin had been a part of it, even in the form of a fruit, then He wouldn’t have said it was “very good”. The sin didn’t lie in the fruit itself because the Bible clearly says that the tree was the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. The sin lay in Adam and Eve disobeying God’s command to not eat of that tree. Like I said, we don’t know that the fruit was an apple, but that is irrelevant because the Bible doesn’t attach any importance to what kind of fruit it was- otherwise we would be told. However, I do believe that there was a literal fruit, and also a literal Adam and Eve. What’s interesting is that cultures all around the world have traditions about this. We see it in their art especially. In China, the oldest character, or symbol they used in their writing for the word “woman” was a symbol that was clearly a woman standing beside a tree with fruit on it and a snake in it. Also, a greenstone cylinder seal was found near the ancient city of Nineveh. On it was depicted a man and a woman, one on either side of a fruit bearing tree with a snake in it. This could be something different, but it seems to possibly be related to the story in Genesis. Of course, the story would change over time, but we would expect to find some semblance of it. Also, in many cultures an evil force or god is female, as in the Yin and the Yang in China, or the evil spirit in Eskimo tradition which was believed to hold all the animals captive during hard times. Could this be because of the idea that sin entered the world through a woman?
__________________________________________________________________________________
"The view of evolution i propose is what i will call theistically guided evolution. I define theistically guided evolution as the view that all life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process (descent with modification), but in various places God guided or influenced this process. God could guide the evolutionary means by mutating some gamete or even adding new information to the gametes, thereby resulting in one organism giving rise to significantly different offspring" (Collins, p. 496) and here are a couple things to think about:

By definition I am a Creationist. Defined, I use this ambiguous term to simply mean that I believe that God created, but that he did not do it in a six day form. Instead, I think he used the process of evolution to slowly create the animals and humans he needed.
________________________________________________________________________________


God didn’t need anybody. He makes this quite clear in the Bible. He simply created us for his own glory. Also, even if Genesis is figurative, there is a major problem with at least one of the most well- known supposed transitions: the evolution of birds from flying dinosaurs. The Bible says that God made birds on day five but all land-dwelling creatures on day six. You can see the problem. If animals evolved, then unless flying dinosaurs evolved first and then immediately changed into birds, it would be impossible for it to follow your model, of each day representing millions of years, since birds would have been created before the dinosaurs from which they supposedly evolved.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Basically it is defined in this quote. “The view of evolution I propose is what I call theistically guided evolution. I define theistically guided evolution as the view that all life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process (“descent with modification”), but in various places, God guided or influenced this process. God could guide the evolutionary process by mutating some gamete or even adding new information to the gametes, thereby resulting in one organism giving rise to significantly different offspring.” (Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, p. 497) This I think gives a good idea to what an Evolutionary Creationist believes.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Like I’ve said before, there is no such thing as an evolutionary Creationist. Theistically guided evolution is completely un-biblical. You can't be a Christian and believe evolution. Why? Because to be a Christian, you must believe the Bible. Sure, there are obviously some places where it is clearly figurative language, but the Bible gives no indication of this in the Creation account. It is given us as a literal account of how God made the world and everything in it. If you say that this is figurative, then how much else can you believe? Is the Worldwide Flood just figurative? The Tower of Babel? Is the Exodus figurative? What about the parting of the Red Sea? Or the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai? Or the walls of Jericho falling down? (By the way, clear evidence has been found to support all these.) How about all the miracles Jesus worked? And most importantly, the Resurrection of Jesus. Was that just figurative too? If it was, then we’re in trouble. If Christ didn’t rise, and there’s no resurrection then our faith is worthless. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:17 … If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! In other words, if we say that the Creation account isn’t true, then how do we know that the rest of the Bible is?


No comments:

Post a Comment