• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

According to scripture death entered the world in regard to man through sin. (adam and eve)

If the head of the body of Christ is using this scripture for a legal ruling in regard to divorce then He is certifing it as truth.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Do you believe in evolution? The OP was a question for the evolutionist.
 
Last edited:
I do accept changes within say dog family, but not a dog giving birth to a cat, as I see that Noah had a female dog and male dog who in them had the Dna for all various kinds of Dogs, based upon where the would migrate to, for north needed thicker fur, etc
Yup. That's correct.

Lion + Tiger= Liger. Nothing new or evolved here. Just a mixture of already established cat parts.
 
So, you do not hold to species changing to another species?

I have stated clearly and multiple times what my position is on that question. We have empirical evidence that speciation happens.

Would you see God as creating the very universe directly, and creating life upon Earth himself, or using evolutionary process?

Yes. I hold that all three statements are true.

Darwinism evolution indeed asserts that species can and have changed over time, but there is no fossil record of transitional changing

Question: What would a transitional fossil look like? Kind of halfway between this species and that species?

I do accept changes within, say, dog family. But not a dog giving birth to a cat, ...

Does anyone believe that a dog ever gives birth to a cat? (No.)
 
I have stated clearly and multiple times what my position is on that question. We have empirical evidence that speciation happens.



Yes. I hold that all three statements are true.



Question: What would a transitional fossil look like? Kind of halfway between this species and that species?



Does anyone believe that a dog ever gives birth to a cat? (No.)

Re evolutionary process
If ‘evolutionary process’ is merely natural causes and effects in a uniformitarian system , then it is not Biblical creation.
 
I have stated clearly and multiple times what my position is on that question. We have empirical evidence that speciation happens.



Yes. I hold that all three statements are true.



Question: What would a transitional fossil look like? Kind of halfway between this species and that species?



Does anyone believe that a dog ever gives birth to a cat? (No.)

Re transitional forms
More to the point , no creatures would suddenly appear complex and none would be the same as the earliest form, but there are. And the ‘oldest’ layer has to be factored by bottom -to-top changes in strata (and the reverse) in a cataclysm.

The Lenski experiment found its mutations eating other things after several decades, but that was due to oxygen in a lab. They had no way to prevent oxygen reaching the mutations, so the ‘simulation’ of the experiment (its accuracy) breaks down there, and must explain a source for oxygen in reality.
 
Re evolutionary process
If ‘evolutionary process’ is merely natural causes and effects in a uniformitarian system , then it is not Biblical creation.

Just like "classic Darwinism," so also the term "uniformitarian" is rife with equivocation from the lips of creationists. Therefore, I am incapable of responding to this without a definition of what a "uniformitarian" system is supposed to be.
 
The topic relates to evolution not U'ism etc.

So your 'topic' at this point was the arrival of death. In that case, the I Corinthian passages are out, and I thought you were otherwise using them as a strong case against evolution and U'ism.
 
I don't hold to a BB theory.
Yes, Shekinah is Christ.


re the BB
We have an intriguing situation here. In the Rogan-Meyer interview, they were at a loss for words to describe how small the initial amount of mass was, and Rogan said 'See! It's 'out of nothing'! Who would have guessed that that event would end up proving the Bible?'

He did not mean, nor do I mean, that the mass 'created itself.' God created that, too, but I mean that the 'spreading out' took place before 1:2, because the result was a lifeless, dark location and starlight had not arrived (no light was bouncing off the water, as the text says).

At a minimum, in the normal sense of 'owr' (general light) in 1:3, that means light arrived on Day 1 from Sirius, our closest source. As hours went by other light arrived, the 'kavov' being all the distant starlight, only mentioned briefly in v16, not local, and not mentioned again until ch 15 about Abraham's seed (as a comparison).

Gen 1 keeps to the natural sense of things all through. I don't know why Day 1 light would be an exception. I don't know why it would show on Day 1 but not be there before Day 1, if it is "Christ."

Perhaps you did not mean that Day 1 light is Christ and can explain.
 
No creatures would suddenly appear complex, ...

The substance of your responses have now veered significantly off-topic, so I am responding to them in a separate thread.

Edited to add: That new thread can be found here.
 
Just like "classic Darwinism," so also the term "uniformitarian" is rife with equivocation from the lips of creationists. Therefore, I am incapable of responding to this without a definition of what a "uniformitarian" system is supposed to be.

Causes and effects are limited to a closed system of nature. A God-figure does not act into nor intervene in that.

The term nothing in the lips of conventional science is rife with something always being there to start with.

That's why Rogan said what he did to Meyer about a mass-explosion event---that the fact that science is driven to say 'nothing' was there makes that event the proof of the Biblical claim.
 
Causes and effects are limited to a closed system of nature. A God-figure does not act into nor intervene in that.

The term nothing in the lips of conventional science is rife with something always being there to start with.

That's why Rogan said what he did to Meyer about a mass-explosion event---that the fact that science is driven to say 'nothing' was there makes that event the proof of the Biblical claim.

I am responding to this in that other thread, since it is off-topic here.
 
Where did death come from?
Physical death comes from God.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 53-54
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body....... 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality.....

Scripturally speaking, humans were made mortal. Death came from God. It is a normal, effective function of divine design. When a plant - any plant - matures and produces flowers the pollination of that plant causes the petals of the flower to die and from there the fruit develops. When the fruit matures it contains a seed and the fruit dies when it is eaten or, if not eaten, then the fruit drops to the ground, rots and dies, and the new seed is planted. That seed dies in order to become a new plant. If this condition did not exist then cows and deer, and crows, etc. would live forever. All the animals would be immortal, not just humans. Furthermore, if an animal happened to fall off a cliff it would necessarily survive the splat at the end of the fall. We'd have flat immortal goats and squirrels 😁. Supposing there was no physical death prior to Genesis 3:6-7 would necessarily mean an entirely different set of physics for the entire planet and all its flora and fauna.

If the op's inquiry is intended to ask, "Where did physical human death come from?" then the answer is "God. Physical death exists as a function of God's design."





If the op intends to ask, "Where did 'spiritual' death come from?" then a categorical error has occurred because evolutionary science is not concerned with explaining anything spiritual. It would be like asking a geologist to scientifically explain why poems exist. Rocks are the domain of geology. Poetic literature is not the domain of geology.





Lastly, the words, "spiritual death," are nowhere to be found in the Bible. The concept of "spiritual" death is a man-made invention, one that was devised to discriminate the distinction between physical death and the nature of death Adam and Eve, and all other humans, experience when disobeying God. The concept is laden with problems and is inconsistent with whole scripture in various ways. For example, Adam, according to 1 Corinthians 15, is called a "living being," and no reference is made to his act of disobedience. Jesus is called a "life-giving spirit," and no reference is made to his sinlessness. This is the basis for the juxtaposition between the "natural" and the "spiritual." In fact, the context provided by the larger text is corruptibility, not corruptedness. Adam was not made already corrupted. He was made corruptible. Adam was not made dead. He was made mortal. Genesis explicitly states each plant and animal produced its own kind and, for plants, that necessarily entails the plant and its various components dying.

The death that occurred as a consequence of Adam's disobedience is best called "transgressional death," of "sinful death," because scripture states the living, breathing, blood-pumping human is dead in transgression, or dead in sin. The person who has disobeyed God is not physically dead, but s/he is, nonetheless, dead in sin. Being dead in sin is a function of God's design for creation (if a person disobeys God, then they die transgressionally). Whether ever disobeying God, or not, the mortal creature is going to die. The only thing that can prevent physical death might be the tree of life/Jesus...... and if the tree of life entailed a resurrection, then physical death was always going to be experienced. Either way, none of that is the domain of scientific evolutionary theory.
 
Perhaps you did not mean that Day 1 light is Christ and can explain.
I believe it is self-explanatory'

Genesis 1:1,3 KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

John 1:1,4 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
 
Do you believe in evolution? The OP was a question for the evolutionist.
I agree with Stephen Meyer. I also believe his book, "Darwin's Doubt," pretty much destroys theistic evolution, along with his videos.

Here is a little taste:
 
Back
Top