What does God say about EVOLUTION?

[ScottA]

Science is one thing...but we should also "render to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

I'm no expert in science, and yet there are experts and there are experts, just as there are natural and spiritual.

God has given us a world of time and dates and a mind to examine it all, and we should. But not in such a way as to lean on our own understanding...which of course could suffice as a fitting definition of science. Not to knock it, but rather to put science where it belongs--it's simply not the end all of authority regarding...well, anything. God is.

And if we are clear on that--hey, post anything you want, and let it be true or false by God!

I had not intended to post a bunch of biblical data on the God given calendar and the math...and to tell you the truth, I don't put much stock in it--I marvel at it, but I much rather look to God in his heart and spirit, than to the created universe and the world that is not of His kingdom. In fact, I would suggest that to do so, is to veer of the path by the God imposed confusion upon all language--an intentional delay until the times are fulfilled.

Nonetheless, I submit that the universe and this world and its laws of would-be time and evolution work according to what is written, in this way:

Mark 4:24
Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
​

And if you hadn't noticed, there is a warning.

For which I also submit that, yes, there are both experts of the natural and experts of the spiritual, and many are false and few are true.

 

[atpollard]

What does God say about EVOLUTION?

 

[ScottA]

Oh, and to those scientific "experts", this was what I posted:

It's not a contest.

God is so much greater than that.

I submit to you that the one theory or the other, whether young or old earth--that neither is correct but equally true...and that both are equally lower than the whole truth. Moreover, that the truth is that it is all-of-the-above. By God--each person's simplest children's nursery rhyme theory unto the most advanced scientific and wildest imagined theory is true.

 

[Blue Dragonfly's]

Science is one thing...but we should also "render to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

I'm no expert in science, and yet there are experts and there are experts, just as there are natural and spiritual.

God has given us a world of time and dates and a mind to examine it all, and we should. But not in such a way as to lean on our own understanding...which of course could suffice as a fitting definition of science. Not to knock it, but rather to put science where it belongs--it's simply not the end all of authority regarding...well, anything. God is.

And if we are clear on that--hey, post anything you want, and let it be true or false by God!

I had not intended to post a bunch of biblical data on the God given calendar and the math...and to tell you the truth, I don't put much stock in it--I marvel at it, but I much rather look to God in his heart and spirit, than to the created universe and the world that is not of His kingdom. In fact, I would suggest that to do so, is to veer of the path by the God imposed confusion upon all language--an intentional delay until the times are fulfilled.

Nonetheless, I submit that the universe and this world and its laws of would-be time and evolution work according to what is written, in this way:

Mark 4:24
Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
​

And if you hadn't noticed, there is a warning.

For which I also submit that, yes, there are both experts of the natural and experts of the spiritual, and many are false and few are true.

What's God say ? He doesn't believe on atheists?

Kidding.

Sort of.

 

[Mr E]

Science is one thing...but we should also "render to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

I'm no expert in science, and yet there are experts and there are experts, just as there are natural and spiritual.

God has given us a world of time and dates and a mind to examine it all, and we should. But not in such a way as to lean on our own understanding...which of course could suffice as a fitting definition of science. Not to knock it, but rather to put science where it belongs--it's simply not the end all of authority regarding...well, anything. God is.

And if we are clear on that--hey, post anything you want, and let it be true or false by God!

I had not intended to post a bunch of biblical data on the God given calendar and the math...and to tell you the truth, I don't put much stock in it--I marvel at it, but I much rather look to God in his heart and spirit, than to the created universe and the world that is not of His kingdom. In fact, I would suggest that to do so, is to veer of the path by the God imposed confusion upon all language--an intentional delay until the times are fulfilled.

Nonetheless, I submit that the universe and this world and its laws of would-be time and evolution work according to what is written, in this way:

Mark 4:24
Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
​

And if you hadn't noticed, there is a warning.

For which I also submit that, yes, there are both experts of the natural and experts of the spiritual, and many are false and few are true.

Again- it’s important to define terms. I can say I believe in evolution and mean quite simply that things do evolve. They change over time. Another person means something quite different when they profess to believe in evolution. They might mean that they believe that “something” exploded in the nothingness and from that nothing, everything formed. Stardust was carried along in the tail of a comet and it fell into a pond and bacteria sprang to life in a primordial ooze that eventually became you.

I don’t believe that.

 

[BeyondET]

Science is one thing...but we should also "render to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

I'm no expert in science, and yet there are experts and there are experts, just as there are natural and spiritual.

God has given us a world of time and dates and a mind to examine it all, and we should. But not in such a way as to lean on our own understanding...which of course could suffice as a fitting definition of science. Not to knock it, but rather to put science where it belongs--it's simply not the end all of authority regarding...well, anything. God is.

And if we are clear on that--hey, post anything you want, and let it be true or false by God!

I had not intended to post a bunch of biblical data on the God given calendar and the math...and to tell you the truth, I don't put much stock in it--I marvel at it, but I much rather look to God in his heart and spirit, than to the created universe and the world that is not of His kingdom. In fact, I would suggest that to do so, is to veer of the path by the God imposed confusion upon all language--an intentional delay until the times are fulfilled.

Nonetheless, I submit that the universe and this world and its laws of would-be time and evolution work according to what is written, in this way:

Mark 4:24
Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
​

And if you hadn't noticed, there is a warning.

For which I also submit that, yes, there are both experts of the natural and experts of the spiritual, and many are false and few are true.

If im not mistaken evolution doesn't really cover the origin of life but its progress so to speak, but some of that theory is built on actual accruing events in nature that is 100% of creation, some being adaptation, regeneration, mutation, metamorphosis and a couple more.

Just in the last 500 yrs or so some 900 species have gone extinct. It happens all the time and different species arise. Finding a fossil is pretty rare on the scale of things. on average most animals, humans completely turn to dust around 100 years in the dirt even in a box 6 feet under.

finding links from one to another is quite a task considering there's not much left after 100 years. there's a assiment that 99% of all species that have ever been on earth have already gone extinct.

With decay rates so fast it would be a extreme challenge to find links to anything all the way back to the beginning.

There's no doubt in my mind there is a vast amount of species that didn't leave behind fossils to be discovered.

 

[amigo de christo]

What does God say about EVOLUTION?

View attachment 26054

 

[BeyondET]

Heres what i find astonishing of that 900 species 128 species of birds have disappeared while another 1200 are in serious danger of becoming extinct today. humans have caused the extinction of all but 3 of those species of birds.

 

[Mr E]

Just in the last 500 yrs or so some 900 species have gone extinct. It happens all the time and different species arise

Can you name even one documented new species that has arisen in the last 500 years, given your claim that it happens all the time?

 

[BeyondET]

Can you name even one documented new species that has arisen in the last 500 years, given your claim that it happens all the time?

A new species are discovered by man all the time but that doesn't mean new to God.
troglobiont centipede in a cave 2020

 

[BeyondET]

After the flood did God create new species is that written? Today around 2 million species that's on the light side assessment, if two by two went on a boat would be 4 million on board. Plus food

This is a replica of the ark in KY same measurements from the Bible.

 

[BeyondET]

Heres a intresting twist 1 in every 500 people are born with supernumerary nipple, are humans like a dog lol.

 

[BeyondET]

It's a bird no it's a plane no it's Superman lol

 

[Mr E]

If im not mistaken evolution doesn't really cover the origin of life but its progress so to speak, but some of that theory is built on actual accruing events in nature that is 100% of creation, some being adaptation, regeneration, mutation, metamorphosis and a couple more.

You are mistaken.

Of course the theory of evolution includes theories on the origin of life. That’s what evolutionist propose— that life was not created by God, but evolved on its own.

This is what is taught in universities— from soup to cells.

How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

 

[Mr E]

A new species are discovered by man all the time but that doesn't mean new to God.
troglobiont centipede in a cave 2020

Yeah— you either missed, misunderstood, or intentionally ignored the question.

Can you name one NEW species that has arisen (not been discovered) in the last 500 years?

 

[Mr E]

It's a bird no it's a plane no it's Superman lol

View attachment 26057

Did you read in the news about the woman who thought she was going to have a baby but when she went into labor and gave birth out came a fish, a snake and a bird???!

No? Me neither.

Human embryos always produce human babies. So too for each and every species- according to its kind, just as scripture says.

 

[atpollard]

Can you name even one documented new species that has arisen in the last 500 years, given your claim that it happens all the time?

Some big finch on a Galapagos Island was documented to diverge from its parent species into a new species in 2 generations (according to the article in the magazine "Nature"). I was underwhelmed, but I am not an ornithologist.

Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

 

[Mr E]

Some big finch on a Galapagos Island was documented to diverge from its parent species into a new species in 2 generations (according to the article in the magazine "Nature"). I was underwhelmed, but I am not an ornithologist.

Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

A different kind of bird that is produced by birds is not a new species arising, is it? That’s selective breeding or adaptation at best. Now if you told me that a bird laid an egg and when it hatched a frog emerged, that would be a new species.

Breeds of dogs have wide variation and in two generations, or even in one pairing of diverse breeds you can generate a new breed. It’s still a dog.

 

[atpollard]

A different kind of bird that is produced by birds is not a new species arising, is it? That’s selective breeding or adaptation at best. Now if you told me that a bird laid an egg and when it hatched a frog emerged, that would be a new species.

Breeds of dogs have wide variation and in two generations, or even in one pairing of diverse breeds you can generate a new breed. It’s still a dog.

As I said, I was personally underwhelmed by the story. Like you, I considered it an example of "sub-species" like "races" among Men or "breeds" among dogs or cows. However, we are not Ornithologists and the "bird scientists" have chosen to call it a new "species". The article starts to explain why they call is a new species.

To your request that a Bird egg hatch a Frog ... even as a non fan of evolution, I think that a little scientific honesty in terms is required. The system for classification from my HS Biology half a century ago is: (Mnemonic: Keep Peaches Clean Or Family Gets Sick)

• Kingdom
• Phylum
• Class
• Order
• Family
• Genus
• Species

Birds all belong to the Class Aves and Frogs all belong to the Class Amphibia, Order Anura.
Therefore, you are NOT asking for a species to give birth to a new species (both from the same genus) ... for example: a lion (Panthera leo) giving birth to a tiger (Panthera tigris).

You are asking for a jump in CLASSES rather than SPECIES. Evolutionists do not claim that new CLASSES are constantly evolving.

 

[Mr E]

As I said, I was personally underwhelmed by the story. Like you, I considered it an example of "sub-species" like "races" among Men or "breeds" among dogs or cows. However, we are not Ornithologists and the "bird scientists" have chosen to call it a new "species". The article starts to explain why they call is a new species.

To your request that a Bird egg hatch a Frog ... even as a non fan of evolution, I think that a little scientific honesty in terms is required. The system for classification from my HS Biology half a century ago is: (Mnemonic: Keep Peaches Clean Or Family Gets Sick)

• Kingdom
• Phylum
• Class
• Order
• Family
• Genus
• Species

Birds all belong to the Class Aves and Frogs all belong to the Class Amphibia, Order Anura.
Therefore, you are NOT asking for a species to give birth to a new species (both from the same genus) ... for example: a lion (Panthera leo) giving birth to a tiger (Panthera tigris).

You are asking for a jump in CLASSES rather than SPECIES. Evolutionists do not claim that new CLASSES are constantly evolving.

I was being loose with the facts, yes. For a purpose. I was being deliberately obtuse to emphasize (again) the need to establish terms of understanding. Up until Darwin's Origin of the Species, the term was fixed and used to describe a hierarchy of 'being' or as a link on the chain or step on a ladder of ascending or descending 'types' of things where a distinction exists, immovable from one type to the next, while diversity within types is wide. For the purposes of the conversation-- if a male and female can produce healthy and viable offspring-- they are considered to be the same species. The offspring of two diverse parents may have aspects and attributes of either, or variations from both, but it will remain of the same species.

It was biologists (like Darwin) who later decided that given enough (imaginary) time that species could evolve by natural selection. It was only by redefining the term 'species' that the theory became plausible. Mutations of species were said to give rise to new species to the degree that every seasonal flu virus would be considered a new species of flu. It requires a ridiculous tormenting of terms and suspension of disbelief-- ah, but that is what science has become.

To summarize-- it was the term "species" that evolved. It was redefined in the 18th century. Your list of taxonomy was developed by a guy named Linnaeus in about 1735... he believed that species was a term for an objective and highly separate group of organisms; as a creationist he wanted to delineate the Genesis "kinds" in his systematics. Members of the group did vary, but by and large, the history of the group (lineage) showed a consistency of traits since the type was formed.

Darwin's perspective was much different and very much inclusive of the idea that ALL life came about from one source through the process of evolution-- To him a species was any group of organisms that competent naturalists said was a species. All organisms were seen as part of a continuum from some single primeval entity.

It was the term "species" that evolved and had to, in order to make evolution of a species plausible, because in Darwin's scheme not only does it require that species emerge via natural selection, hybridization and mutation, these class jumps are not only possible, but necessary leaps from nothing to everything.