No Contradition Between Creation and Evolution

[Elijah]

Dear Friends,

I would like to share with those who are truly searching for answers.. this premise:

Evolution becomes a cause for debate only when Christians think that creation has been accomplished. But there are many references in the bible suggesting that God is "still working". If God is still working and creation is still yet to be completed, then evolution must be the creation that is still going on.

If we are supposed to be created in God's image, then we are not yet created because God is light and we are certainly not lighted up yet. But there is one who has been lighted up - Jesus. His glorification on the mountain top when he face and clothes were transfigured into brilliance. He was indeed the first fully created being of the light - God's image.

We too shall become sons of light. And evolution is getting us there.

I share with all who are willing to receive this knowledge and the answers to many more questions concerning the resurrection, the kingdom and the three "persons' of God in this book which you can download here:

RESTORING THE GOOD NEWS OF EVERLASTING LIFE:

[link removed]

 

[Dcopymope]

Dear Friends,

I would like to share with those who are truly searching for answers.. this premise:

Evolution becomes a cause for debate only when Christians think that creation has been accomplished. But there are many references in the bible suggesting that God is "still working". If God is still working and creation is still yet to be completed, then evolution must be the creation that is still going on.

If we are supposed to be created in God's image, then we are not yet created because God is light and we are certainly not lighted up yet. But there is one who has been lighted up - Jesus. His glorification on the mountain top when he face and clothes were transfigured into brilliance. He was indeed the first fully created being of the light - God's image.

We too shall become sons of light. And evolution is getting us there.

I share with all who are willing to receive this knowledge and the answers to many more questions concerning the resurrection, the kingdom and the three "persons' of God in this book which you can download here:

RESTORING THE GOOD NEWS OF EVERLASTING LIFE:

[link removed]

Can you cite the scriptures that explicitly state that God did not in fact mean exactly what he said in Genesis 2 which states that what God had done in the six day creation, that the heavens and the earth and all the host of them was finished on the sixth day?

 

[Dan57]

There's a huge contradiction between creationism and evolution. Genesis 2:2 says that God finished and ended his work of creation and rested from all that he had made. Evolution states the complete opposite. That doesn't mean that there won't be a transformation from flesh to spirit, but only that nothing in the flesh will 'evolve' into something else.

 

[Dcopymope]

There's a huge contradiction between creationism and evolution. Genesis 2:2 says that God finished and ended his work of creation and rested from all that he had made. Evolution states the complete opposite. That doesn't mean that there won't be a transformation from flesh to spirit, but only that nothing in the flesh will 'evolve' into something else.

You basically answered my question for me, but I'm still waiting on him to cite the scriptures stating that the work of creation was not in fact finished on the sixth day of creation. If God is "still working" on his creation, if he didn't finish the work of creation like it plainly states, then Jesus could not have possibly finished the work of reconciliation of his creation on the cross in the first place, which also means no future redemption of his creation. So evolution, which claims that what God finished is in "fact" still a work in progress, is in direct opposition to the gospel message and I want the OP and rest of the characters on this site that believe in this heresy to cite scripture showing me otherwise

 

[River Jordan]

There's a huge contradiction between creationism and evolution. Genesis 2:2 says that God finished and ended his work of creation and rested from all that he had made. Evolution states the complete opposite. That doesn't mean that there won't be a transformation from flesh to spirit, but only that nothing in the flesh will 'evolve' into something else.

Then you have a serious problem, because we see populations evolving all sorts of new things all the time.

 

[River Jordan]

You basically answered my question for me, but I'm still waiting on him to cite the scriptures stating that the work of creation was not in fact finished on the sixth day of creation. If God is "still working" on his creation, if he didn't finish the work of creation like it plainly states, then Jesus could not have possibly finished the work of reconciliation of his creation on the cross in the first place, which also means no future redemption of his creation. So evolution, which claims that what God finished is in "fact" still a work in progress, is in direct opposition to the gospel message and I want the OP and rest of the characters on this site that believe in this heresy to cite scripture showing me otherwise

Unless evolution itself is part of the creation.

 

[Dan57]

Then you have a serious problem, because we see populations evolving all sorts of new things all the time.

There is evidence of microevolution, usually in sync with environmental adaption and limited to the same species, but there is no direct evidence of macroevolution where one species completely transforms into another or different species.. Its all unproven theories with no fossil records to back-up any such transitions.

 

[Dcopymope]

Unless evolution itself is part of the creation.

If evolution is a apart of the creation, it means that we are not the image bearers of God, uniquely formed from the dust of the earth as plainly stated, but are instead the image bearers of King Kong, formed from the material of a primate. If evolution is apart of the creation, then God did not do the work of creation all on his own, he was simply either the kickstarter of life from non-life, and/or the interventionist at various periods of time on the part of the process from single celled water based organisms to man. This means that it was instead nature that performed the work of creation while Gods role was relegated to that which fills the gaps.

Since God did not perform the work of creation from beginning to end, then he cannot claim to reconcile all things unto him and restore to perfection before the fall that which he did not create through the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter what brand of evolution you want to ascribe to the creation process, theistic or not, the inevitable conclusion is that it is a works based belief system. If God did not 100% perform the work of creation then he cannot claim to have performed, 100%, the work of reconciliation of that creation through the blood atonement of Christ, meaning our salvation relies on our own works and not by grace through faith in Jesus. This may not be evident to many right now, but I am 100% positive that this will become a salvation issue for those that believe in this heresy, when the Man of sin arrives preaching his works based, pantheistic, new age gospel. If it is at all possible for the elect to be decieved, then this will be the basis for the deception.

 

[River Jordan]

There is evidence of microevolution, usually in sync with environmental adaption and limited to the same species, but there is no direct evidence of macroevolution where one species completely transforms into another or different species.. Its all unproven theories with no fossil records to back-up any such transitions.

You know, it's this sort of thing that keeps me coming back to discussions of this subject. Here I posted a series of links to scientific papers that document the observed evolution of new species and what is your response? Nothing more than an assertion that no new species have evolved. That's so weird and strange, it's fascinating to watch. It's also an almost perfect illustration of how creationists are thought of.....heads in the sand, fingers in the ears, shouting "LALALALALALA I can't hear you!"

I mean, it's positively fascinating on several levels. First, do you think the scientists who wrote those papers about the evolution of new species are lying? If so, what evidence do you have that they are? Or is it that you think they're just very, very bad at their jobs to the point where "Dan57 at Christianityboard" merely saying they're wrong is a valid response?

Or is this yet another case where a creationist thinks "evolution of a new species" means "a cat turning into a dog"?

Or is this just your way of avoiding the internal conflict that would arise should you acknowledge that new species have been observed to evolve? After all, if that's true and since you've already staked at least part of your faith on it not being true, then if it is, what does that mean for your faith? Those are probably some very complex and deep emotional issues. So maybe it's just safer to deny it altogether thereby avoiding having to confront and deal with those issues.

Whatever is going on here, it perplexes me. I don't know of any other subject that so consistently produces this sort of behavior from a group of people. Just fascinating..... :huh:

 

[River Jordan]

If evolution is a apart of the creation, it means that we are not the image bearers of God, uniquely formed from the dust of the earth as plainly stated, but are instead the image bearers of King Kong, formed from the material of a primate.

So you believe "in the image of God" refers to physical characteristics? IOW, what makes us unique and special is something in our physical anatomy?

If evolution is apart of the creation, then God did not do the work of creation all on his own, he was simply either the kickstarter of life from non-life, and/or the interventionist at various periods of time on the part of the process from single celled water based organisms to man. This means that it was instead nature that performed the work of creation while Gods role was relegated to that which fills the gaps.

Do you take this same approach with the creation of mountains and wind? Scripture very clearly says God creates both those things (Amos 4:13). Does that mean Christians must deny plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients?

Since God did not perform the work of creation from beginning to end, then he cannot claim to reconcile all things unto him and restore to perfection before the fall that which he did not create through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but I don't see the connection between those two things at all.

It doesn't matter what brand of evolution you want to ascribe to the creation process, theistic or not, the inevitable conclusion is that it is a works based belief system. If God did not 100% perform the work of creation then he cannot claim to have performed, 100%, the work of reconciliation of that creation through the blood atonement of Christ, meaning our salvation relies on our own works and not by grace through faith in Jesus. This may not be evident to many right now,

No, it doesn't make sense at all IMO.

but I am 100% positive that this will become a salvation issue for those that believe in this heresy, when the Man of sin arrives preaching his works based, pantheistic, new age gospel. If it is at all possible for the elect to be decieved, then this will be the basis for the deception.

Well that's inconvenient since....well.....as I showed earlier, evolution is real and happens all the time. But given the above I'd guess you probably deal with that conflict the same way Dan57 has....just deny whatever science comes out of evolutionary biology. I suppose it's emotionally safe and simplistic though.

 

[Dcopymope]

So you believe "in the image of God" refers to physical characteristics? IOW, what makes us unique and special is something in our physical anatomy?

Would the Father have sent his only begotten son in the image of a bipedal talking primate if our physical characteristics have no bearing on us being image bearers?

Sorry, but I don't see the connection between those two things at all.

I'm not expecting sound Biblical doctrine to make sense to someone whose thoughts are so into the flesh that they cannot possibly understand the things of the spirit, which is the word. I didn't write this for you.

Well that's inconvenient since....well.....as I showed earlier, evolution is real and happens all the time. But given the above I'd guess you probably deal with that conflict the same way Dan57 has....just deny whatever science comes out of evolutionary biology. I suppose it's emotionally safe and simplistic though.

​You haven't shown anything new to this site that you haven't regurgitated 100 times over that ended up being debunked, 100 times over, in 100 different ways. Why waste my time with the hardheaded? I see you can't cite the scripture that explicitly speaks of evolution being apart of the creation process, nor can your OP buddy cite that this process is "still working". I'm not interesting in the tired argument against science falsely so called. I want scripture to back it up, the thing from which your entire reality, past, present and future should based on, since you falsely claim to be a believer in Gods word. Since you can't, then your argument has no standing in the eyes of God.

 

[River Jordan]

Would the Father have sent his only begotten son in the image of a bipedal talking primate if our physical characteristics have no bearing on us being image bearers?

What specific part of our physical anatomy makes us created in the image of God?

You haven't shown anything new to this site that you haven't regurgitated 100 times over that ended up being debunked, 100 times over, in 100 different ways.

What is this "debunking" of the material I posted, and/or where can I find it?

I see you can't cite the scripture that explicitly speaks of evolution being apart of the creation process, nor can your OP buddy cite that this process is "still working".

In typical creationist fashion you ignored the point about scripture clearly saying God created mountains and wind. That's relevant here because I'm wondering where scripture explicitly speaks of plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients being part of the creation process. Where in scripture are those things?

I'm not interesting in the tired argument against science false so called I want scripture to back it up, the thing from which your entire for reality past, present and future should based on. Since you can't, then your argument has no standing in the eyes of God.

Are you one of those "if it's not in the Bible it's not real" people? If so, I have to wonder how you deal with things like viruses, atoms, and South America (since none of those are mentioned in scripture either).

 

[Dcopymope]

What specific part of our physical anatomy makes us created in the image of God?

When God made Adam in his image, he made him with the intention of being distinct from animal, both in its spirit and in flesh. Would it have been better for you if Jesus manifested in the likeness of an ape or in the likeness of that which he created to represent him, both in spirit and in the flesh as he appeared even unto Ezekiel on the throne in the old testament?

What is this "debunking" of the material I posted, and/or where can I find it?

Often times, its your own material debunking you pal, depending on whatever the hell you mean by "evolution". If by evolution you mean animals undergoing change over time so that species of its kind occur, then fine. If by evolution you mean the more historical, general theory that claims all living animals in the distant, mystical land before time can all be linked by common ancestry to a single organism, then I'm sorry, I am not obligated in something that amounts to nothing more than the story of the Princess and the Frog taught under the guise of "science".

In typical creationist fashion you ignored the point about scripture clearly saying God created mountains and wind. That's relevant here because I'm wondering where scripture explicitly speaks of plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients being part of the creation process. Where in scripture are those things?

​Not understanding what problem you seem to have with a volcano and what a volcano has to do with this argument. As for plate tectonics, it didn't even exist before the flood anyway, Before God caused the fountains of the great deep to break apart. So again, whats your point? As far as temperature gradients are concerned, there was none, the atmosphere was stable and uniform, it didn't even rain before the flood. What earth was like pre-flood is almost almost night and day in comparison to what it became post-flood.

Are you one of those "if it's not in the Bible it's not real" people? If so, I have to wonder how you deal with things like viruses, atoms, and South America (since none of those are mentioned in scripture either).

If the process by which man claims all living beings under the heavens and the earth came into existence is not recorded in Gods word, then I have no reason to adhere to it whatsoever. I'm not ashamed for letting Gods word speak for itself and letting the claims and doctrines of devils and men stand for the lies they clearly are. Man claims common ancestry from to animal, God states common ancestry to Adam. I'll take the latter over the ridiculous former.

 

[River Jordan]

When God made Adam in his image, he made him with the intention of being distinct from animal, both in its spirit and in flesh. Would it have been better for you if Jesus manifested in the likeness of an ape or in the likeness of that which he created to represent him, both in spirit and in the flesh as he appeared even unto Ezekiel on the throne in the old testament?

You still didn't answer the question. What part of our physical anatomy makes us created in the image of God?

Often times, its your own material debunking you pal, depending on whatever the hell you mean by "evolution". If by evolution you mean animals undergoing change over time so that species of its kind occur, then fine. If by evolution you mean the more historical, general theory that claims all living animals in the distant, mystical land before time can all be linked by common ancestry to a single organism, then I'm sorry, I am not obligated in something that amounts to nothing more than the story of the Princess and the Frog taught under the guise of "science".

Again you dodge the question. You claimed the papers I linked to have been "debunked". What is this "debunking" and/or where can I find it?

Not understanding what problem you seem to have with a volcano and what a volcano has to do with this argument. As for plate tectonics, it didn't even exist before the flood anyway, Before God caused the fountains of the great deep to break apart. So again, whats your point? As far as temperature gradients are concerned, there was none, the atmosphere was stable and uniform, it didn't even rain before the flood. What earth was like pre-flood is almost almost night and day in comparison to what it became post-flood.

​
The point is very simple. Regarding the creation of organisms you argued God must have done all the creating Himself, and if natural processes (evolution) had played any role God would be "relegated" to "an interventionist role". Scripture also says God created mountains and wind. Thus by the same reasoning, God must have done all the creating Himself, and if natural processes (plate tectonics, volcanism, temperature gradients) had played any role God would be "relegated" to "an interventionist role".

Therefore by your own standards, you must also deny the existence of plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients.

If the process by which man claims all living beings under the heavens and the earth came into existence is not recorded in Gods word, then I have no reason to adhere to it whatsoever.

Likewise the processes by which man claims mountains and wind come into existence is not recorded in God's word, which means in order to be consistent you must also deny the existence of plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients.

And that makes me wonder....do you believe anything happens on its own, or is God controlling everything?

I'm not ashamed for letting Gods word speak for itself and letting the claims and doctrines of devils and men stand for the lies they clearly are. Man claims common ancestry from to animal, God states common ancestry to Adam. I'll take the latter over the ridiculous former.

We'll see just how consistent you are with this approach.

 

[Dcopymope]

You still didn't answer the question. What part of our physical anatomy makes us created in the image of God?

And I already answered your question with scripture, its all of it.

Again you dodge the question. You claimed the papers I linked to have been "debunked". What is this "debunking" and/or where can I find it?

I've seen enough talk about the alleged scientific validity of evolution on this site, so how about you answer my original challenge and cite scripture backing up the religion you claim to believe in first before I bother going any further answering yours? Or are you incapable in being a man about it and admiting that your "science" has no basis in the word of God?

The point is very simple. Regarding the creation of organisms you argued God must have done all the creating Himself, and if natural processes (evolution) had played any role God would be "relegated" to "an interventionist role". Scripture also says God created mountains and wind. Thus by the same reasoning, God must have done all the creating Himself, and if natural processes (plate tectonics, volcanism, temperature gradients) had played any role God would be "relegated" to "an interventionist role".


Therefore by your own standards, you must also deny the existence of plate tectonics, volcanism, and temperature gradients.

And, like I said, neither tectonics nor temperature gradients existed before the flood, so you're not actually making any sort of valid point. Since you felt the need to bring it up, can volcanoes, temperature gradients, and tectonics result in the creation of life? What does the links you provided even have to do with volcanoes, tectonics and temperature gradients? That is the crux of what this thread is about. Prove that your materialism actually has a shred of credibility in the eyes of Gods word and stop playing your typical straw man arguments and stick with the subject at hand, or just man up and admit that evolution has no standing in scripture, and mush on.

And that makes me wonder....do you believe anything happens on its own, or is God controlling everything?

I believe that the process by which all things recorded in the six day creation was entirely the hand of God and not by any naturalistic means, which is what this thread is about. Anything that comes about beyond that concerning that in the six day creation is nothing more than Gods encoded processes that reacts to certain stimuli within certain environments. Can God interact directly with his creation to bring about specific results? Obviously, he waterboarded the earth did he not? Now I'll repeat myself for the last time, how you respond determines whether or not I waste anymore of my time with you. I want scripture showing that there is no contradiction between the six day creation event in Gods word, and your belief in mans idea of how all within the six day creation came about that goes under this thing called "evolution".

 

[River Jordan]

And I already answered your question with scripture, its all of it.

No, you've not identified which part of our anatomy makes us created in the image of God. You've done nothing but dodge the question since I first posted it. But then, in my time in this forum I've come to realize how this is a character trait of creationists in general.

I've seen enough talk about the alleged scientific validity of evolution on this site, so how about you answer my original challenge and cite scripture backing up the religion you claim to believe in first before I bother going any further answering yours? Or are you incapable in being a man about it and admiting that your "science" has no basis in the word of God?

Again you do everything you can to dodge the question. You claimed the articles I linked to have been "debunked", yet you can't say what this debunking is nor can you show where it exists. But like I said, this sort of evasion is typical of creationists.

And, like I said, neither tectonics nor temperature gradients existed before the flood, so you're not actually making any sort of valid point.

You're not making sense, which I suspect is just another tactic you're employing to evade the issue.

Since you felt the need to bring it up, can volcanoes, temperature gradients, and tectonics result in the creation of life? What does the links you provided even have to do with volcanoes, tectonics and temperature gradients? That is the crux of what this thread is about.

Your constant dodging and evading is making you lose track of the discussion. I brought up volcanoes, tectonics, and temperature gradients as examples of scientifically-established natural mechanisms that are responsible for mountains and wind (respectively), related that back to scripture that says God creates mountains and wind, and asked you if that meant you deny those natural mechanisms on the same grounds you deny evolution. And as we've seen, you've done everything you can do avoid having to think about and confront that issue.

The links I posted were in response to Dan57's argument that nothing evolves into anything else.

Prove that your materialism actually has a shred of credibility in the eyes of Gods word

What "materialism" are you referring to?

I believe that the process by which all things recorded in the six day creation was entirely the hand of God and not by any naturalistic means, which is what this thread is about. Anything that comes about beyond that concerning that in the six day creation is nothing more than Gods encoded processes that reacts to certain stimuli within certain environments.

So you believe during the creation week God did everything Himself supernaturally, and everything that came about after that week did so via the natural mechanisms God set up? Is that correct?

I want scripture showing that there is no contradiction between the six day creation event in Gods word, and your belief in mans idea of how all within the six day creation came about that goes under this thing called "evolution".

I guess it depends on which creation account you're referring to. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, if read literally, don't mesh.

But to answer the spirit of your question, Genesis 1 depicts God as letting things happen as the means of creation. Gen. 1:11 says God said "Let the land produce vegetation". It doesn't say "God created vegetation", instead it depicts God commanding the land to do it. We see this theme repeated throughout Genesis 1....God "lets" things happen rather than doing them directly Himself. In Hebrew this sort of language is referred to as a "jussive", which is used to portray a passive, rather than direct, action.

To me all that is entirely consistent with what we've since discovered about the history of life on earth and evolution. Just as God creates mountains via the natural mechanisms of tectonics and volcanism, He creates species via the natural mechanism of evolution, which we know from direct observation is a real process.

Now, I'm quite sure you will use my response as an excuse to bail out of this discussion. As I've described, avoidance of inconvenient facts is a character trait of creationists. We've seen you do so in this thread quite a lot already. So it would be entirely in character of you to post some final insult to me and leave the thread, thereby avoiding the facts and issues raised by the information I've posted. That way you no longer are confronted with those issues and you don't have to think about them anymore. Safe, quick, and efficient.

 

[Dcopymope]

I guess it depends on which creation account you're referring to. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, if read literally, don't mesh.

But to answer the spirit of your question, Genesis 1 depicts God as letting things happen as the means of creation. Gen. 1:11 says God said "Let the land produce vegetation". It doesn't say "God created vegetation", instead it depicts God commanding the land to do it. We see this theme repeated throughout Genesis 1....God "lets" things happen rather than doing them directly Himself. In Hebrew this sort of language is referred to as a "jussive", which is used to portray a passive, rather than direct, action.

To me all that is entirely consistent with what we've since discovered about the history of life on earth and evolution. Just as God creates mountains via the natural mechanisms of tectonics and volcanism, He creates species via the natural mechanism of evolution, which we know from direct observation is a real process.

Now, I'm quite sure you will use my response as an excuse to bail out of this discussion. As I've described, avoidance of inconvenient facts is a character trait of creationists. We've seen you do so in this thread quite a lot already. So it would be entirely in character of you to post some final insult to me and leave the thread, thereby avoiding the facts and issues raised by the information I've posted. That way you no longer are confronted with those issues and you don't have to think about them anymore. Safe, quick, and efficient.

Now we're getting somewhere. The two meshes perfectly together, Genesis 1 simply states that God made every living thing, and that he made it after its kind. Genesis two states the manner in which he did it and shows exactly what God meant by "after its kind", and it wasn't by common ancestry from amoeba to man, but from the dust of the earth, which debunks any and all assertions of evolution. God letting things happen versus God commanding it are two entirely different meanings. When it says that God formed all we see by the power of his word (Jesus), that's not a statement that he "let" it happen, its a commandment meant to get specific results. To let something happen means that it would have come about solely by its own volition.

It wouldn't have grown by their own volition, because for plants to grow, it needs sufficient sun light, for which there was none. God didn't break up the clouds that caused darkness to occur upon the face of the deep until the fourth day. Yet you espouse this rubbish that the plants magically grew of the their own volition because God simply "let it happen"? I would like to see you try and let a plant grow without sunlight, or better yet, speak it into existence like the Lord God performed. But really, we're not even necessarily talking about plant life, we're talking about that which scripture refers to as living beings. And when it comes to living beings, there was no evolution of the kinds by common ancestry to a single organism, but by the dust of the earth. Sorry, I'm not your "typical" creationist, so try harder next time with your expectations of insults levied towards you.

 

[River Jordan]

Now we're getting somewhere. The two meshes perfectly together, Genesis 1 simply states that God made every living thing, and that he made it after its kind. Genesis two states the manner in which he did it and shows exactly what God meant by "after its kind",

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but Genesis 1 & 2, if read as literal accounts describing exactly how God created things, are very contradictory. In Genesis 1 God commands the earth bring forth plants on the third day and creates man on the sixth day. But in Genesis 2 there are no plants on the earth, God creates Adam, then plants a garden in Eden, and puts Adam there to tend it.

Those are completely different sequences.

and it wasn't by common ancestry from amoeba to man, but from the dust of the earth, which debunks any and all assertions of evolution.

I don't see how. God creating by letting things form from the earth sounds exactly like evolution to me.

God letting things happen versus God commanding it are two entirely different meanings. When it says that God formed all we see by the power of his word (Jesus), that's not a statement that he "let" it happen, its a commandment meant to get specific results. To let something happen means that it would have come about solely by its own volition.

Genesis says God created by letting the earth bring forth things. Sounds like evolution to me.

It wouldn't have grown by their own volition, because for plants to grow, it needs sufficient sun light, for which there was none. God didn't break up the clouds that caused darkness to occur upon the face of the deep until the fourth day. Yet you espouse this rubbish that the plants magically grew of the their own volition because God simply "let it happen"? I would like to see you try and let a plant grow without sunlight, or better yet, speak it into existence like the Lord God performed.

So you're saying God didn't know enough to provide sunlight first then create plants? And instead He created plants first, had to take special intervention to sustain them, and then provided sunlight? That's really odd, especially for someone who previously objected to an "interventionist" God.

But really, we're not even necessarily talking about plant life, we're talking about that which scripture refers to as living beings. And when it comes to living beings, there was no evolution of the kinds by common ancestry to a single organism, but by the dust of the earth.

Organisms forming from the earth is not mutually exclusive with evolution. In fact, the two are pretty much the same.

Sorry, I'm not your "typical" creationist, so try harder next time with your expectations of insults levied towards you.

Good. Surprise me.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

If you're going to quote 1:11 as truth, you have to go with 1:20-21 as well.

 

[Dcopymope]

If you're going to quote 1:11 as truth, you have to go with 1:20-21 as well.

What exactly are you referring to?