1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Evolution in any form in the Bible?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by ray Marshall, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have not said word one about a young earth.

    But I'll say this:
    1. I think the earth was created with age, just as Adam and Eve were and as the animals likely were.

    2. I do not think science can date things as far back as they claim to begin with. It's all theory and they base what they see on their presuppositions.

    I had to get into this to arm my son when he was in school for the coming evolution avalanche I knew he would be facing. It got to where the science teacher didn't call on him anymore because Geoffrey always had points and objections the teacher did not want to deal with. Btw, my son is extremely bright and was in the gifted programs at the schools he went to.
     
  2. matt wade

    matt wade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    78
    What does Adam's age after the fall have to do with anything? It has been offered that between the creation of Adam and the fall that millions of years passed. During that time Adam and Eve were tasked to be fruitful and multiply (procreate). I ask the question again, please don't avoid it again. Do you believe that Adam and Eve failed to follow God's instructions for millions of years?

    My faith is in what God has told us through his Word. You are the one that is looking for answers elsewhere. In another post you said, "It occurs to me that forcing a young earth, non-science perspective just shows an irrational fear that our faith is not as strong as we'd like to believe." I find that very funny. I have faith that God did things the way he said He did them. You are the one questioning His Word and looking for answers from science. Exactly who's faith is not as strong as we'd like to believe?
     
  3. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Young earth is all I've been dealing with since it was introduced earlier... I can see that its possible God would create the world with age. That's certainly within His power to do, and I should probably leave it there, because, as I said before, the old-earth Christian, in my experience, always has to be the most gracious of the two sides... but now that I've said that, I'll ask for a little grace on your part: Isn't it just as possible that Adam and Eve spent billions of years in Eden before the fall?
     
  4. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt,

    you're coming off as quite obnoxious, when you and I have managed to agree on some other things in this forum. I am only one person, responding to one point at a time, and I am NOT, avoiding yours.

    The point is this: Adam and Eve, before the fall had an ETERNAL perspective. Because ETERNITY is how long they would have been allowed to spend in harmony with God in Eden, had they not eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

    If I were in Eternity and tasked with procreation, a million-billion years would not seem TOO long to get to it.

    Its not a matter of disobeying, its a matter of knowing you've got all the time in eternity.

    And, again, this explanation is AS valid and AS conjecture as the "procreation commandment" theory... BECAUSE GENESIS DOES NOT SAY OTHERWISE.

    Listen, you can live in fear of new scientific discoveries, trying your whole life to deny them, or you can believe God made it ALL anyway, and NOTHING will shake your faith.

    "As for me and my house..."
     
  5. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Since we only see Adam and Eve at the fall, how is it that billions of years occurred before the fall? Since Adam and Eve were "perfect", why didn't they have children during this time when it was God's command to be fruitful and multiply??
     
  6. matt wade

    matt wade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    78
    Don't be obnoxious...they had all the time in the world! :laugh:

    Creyn, you fail to take into account that at the time Adam was created, God had already created day and night and so "time" was in existence. We are clearly told in Genesis, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.". It doesn't say "all the days after the fall". It says "all the days".
     
  7. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Yeah but even taking their time should result in a babe or two! I mean...really!!
     
  8. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    But death didn't come to man BEFORE the fall. Adam and Eve were eternal before then and age was irrelevant.

    OK? So I offered a valid (as valid as anything you've said) defense of my theory that then allows the room for science to date the world as old as it does. How many days did Adam and Eve spend in the garden before the fall?
     
  9. matt wade

    matt wade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    78
    Where does it say that age was irrelevant? Does Genesis 5:5 say they started counting at the fall? No, it says "all the days that Adam lived". Wasn't Adam living in the garden? You just toss out the time he lived in the Garden because it doesn't agree with your science.

    I have no idea how many days they where in the garden before the fall. It doesn't matter. He was alive 930 total. There isn't room for millions of years in there.
     
  10. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pure conjecture? I'd expect more from you than that.

    Just support their length of stay in Eden with scripture, or stop trying to deny that the earth might be older than traditionally thought.

    Again, I ask, why is it SO important that the earth only be 8 to 15 thousand years old? Why? Is it because we're SO afraid of evolution disproving God that we have to limit the timeframe in which it could have happened?

    Marcia? You've been a more temperate voice in this discussion... what say you?

    But now I've got to run... so don't expect another instant reply, and don't accuse me of "avoiding" your points, OK Matt?
     
  11. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    There's nothing there about death. It's about years. There were days before the fall, and the sun so there must have been years. The Bible states how old Noah was - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years" That's pretty straightforward and I don't think can be construed any other way.



    That we don't know but it was short enough to not procreate.
     
  12. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. We know that disobedience to that command was not the sin that they committed otherwise we'd know about that. If they followed that command, and since Eve's body was pure and not so badly affected by sin like ours is today, it is most likely that she would have conceived relatively quickly.

    I'd say that I have quite a bit more Scriptural support than you have since the Scripture tells us just how many days Adam lived on the earth. Since there were days before the fall, we know they were true days - not like dog days or something. He lived 930 years. That's what Scripture tells us. To say anything else is saying that the Scriptures are not telling us the truth.
     
  13. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, assuming you're right about Adam being 930 from creation to death, how many of those years did he spend "disobeying God" before they got around to procreating? Your words, not mine...

    Is there evidence to support the idea that he was just a year old before the fall and their first painful labor? how about 465? how about 800?

    Wait, you mean it DOESN'T SAY?! I'm shocked.

    My point stands... I believe, with no evidence to the contrary, that Adam's age was marked from the fall onward and they're time in the garden was many, many years.
     
  14. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    You saying that God is lying when He said that all the days that Adam lived was 930 years? If that's not clear speaking, I don't know what is. The words are very clear.
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64

    It is pathetic that professing Christians are so eager to embrace the myth of evolution that they ignore the clear teaching of Scripture.

    Genesis 5:1-5
    1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
    2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
    3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
    4. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
    5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


    Even an unbeliever should be able to understand that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and that he lived an additional 800 years, dying at the age of 930 years.
     
  16. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Going on the assumption that you are normal, I answered this question in my last post; # 90.

    But I'll post it here for convenience.
    Now can you SERIOUSLY believe that under the perfect circumstances of Eden, a robust healthy young stud and a vivacious young damsel, being the only two humans in existence at this time, (surely you aren't going to claim the possibility of other creations that God didn't mention, are you?) are going to exist with no, repeat NO, moral (to modern man) restrictions, and no emergent by-product of the mutual giving of each to the other???????

    If so, then you must believe that Eve had one whale of a "headache" --WOW!!!!

    Incidentally, as a side note on these two, I once read that even after the fall they were the perfect couple because:
    1 She had no one "that she could have married", and
    2 He couldn't complain that her cooking was not as good as his Moms!:tonofbricks:

    Edited to add:
    I suppose it is conceivable that the stay could have been longer, and that God just supernaturally prevented Eve from conceiving, but I do think something of that magnitude would have been spelled out. Seems that God gave us all He wanted us to know, so ANY speculation (including mine) is simply that - SPECULATION.
     
    #116 just-want-peace, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2009
  17. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think so. That makes no sense. I agree with what Ann posted.

    If they had spent billions of years before the fall, their descendants would have interbred for billions of years and this was before God made incest a violation.
     
  18. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think incest was made unwise because of the effects of inbred offspring by scientists.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    How did it all happen? How did we get here and why? These are questions that have plagued mankind, not just since Darwin, but through much of recorded history. At present there are two concepts or ‘models’, creation and evolution, used to explain the existence of the universe and man. Neither can be proven, therefore, both enter the realm of faith. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation. No one was present at the start of the evolutionary process.

    The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. Those scientists who believe in creation, and there are many, insist that the creation model best explains the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life.

    The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, is the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.

    A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their teaching of divine creation.

    Evolution is always presented as fact with the impression that there is universal agreement among evolutionists in interpretation of scientific data. Nothing could be further from the truth; the harmony within the evolution camp is more like that of tomcats on the prowl. For example, Professor Pierre Grasse of the Sorbonne University in Paris writes:

    “Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms .... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.”

    Mark Ridley of Oxford University in England writes to the contrary:
    “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”

    Two matters on which evolutionists are in general agreement are the denial of a Creator and the characterization of creation as a ‘religious myth’. There is, however, a ‘thorn in the flesh’ of evolutionists they are unable to remove, the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. This law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all processes toward decay and disorder; evolution requires the reverse.

    Evolutionists argue that most reputable scientists reject creation. This is patently false. Most of the great advances in science during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were made by scientists who believed in creation. Today a substantial number of prominent scientists also reject the bases for the evolutionary model.

    Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin has stated:
    “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

    The 1971 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science Dennis Gabor, has stated:
    “I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations ...”

    Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:
    “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”

    Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen, has written:
    “I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.”
     
  20. Creyn

    Creyn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    True... a good and valid point, with one exception: God told Adam to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE he had even created Eve, and there's nothing in Genesis between putting "the man in the garden to work it and take care of it" in 2:15, and 2:18 when he finally creates Eve, to say how long that time actually was.

    So, may I amend my point: There is no telling how long he (not they) was in the garden working it and caring for it, before God said its not good for man to be alone, and He created Eve, and the Fall happened, and they got to procreatin'.

    This is still predicated on the idea that Adam's days were only numbered when death was on his horizon though... that the spiritual death of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge marked the beginning of his end.

    Now, why do I come to these conclusions? Because the distance of the stars, and the speed of light, also tend to date the world much older than ten thousand years. Because I do not believe that God is deceptive, nor do I believe He wants to hide Himself from us, so I don't think He would make the universe appear older than it actually is. You could debate His motivation for making the earth and universe look older than it is, but the act of doing so would, by definition be deceptive.

    I don't believe He is one bit deceptive, so the idea of the "extended stay in Eden" merely squares that science with what we must hold to be true... The inerrant Word of The Lord, written in the book of Genesis.

    You see? I'm not changing the Word to fit science, but rather reading The Word in such a way that assumes science is already compatible with It. God created science too, after all.
     
    #120 Creyn, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2009
Loading...