Evidence for Evolution in the BIBLE

Doesn't sound like evolution to me. Sounds like each makes the same kind as it is.



Not of course.

Perhaps once it starts to take shape. A plant will not suddenly turn into an animal, of course...which is probably what that passage means. Subtle change, not spontaneous creation.

If you want to get technical we are ALL the same kind. Look back far enough and everything converges.

~Zoo

That's not what the Bible says, though.

Well, the Bible can't say anything...it's a book.

~Zoo

Really? You got that from that verse? well not exactly....you skipped right over .......

"in the beginning God created..." Gen 1:1

oh and you forgot:

"And God created great whales and EVERY living creature that moved......." 1:21

oh and this:

"And God said..."Let us make man in our image....." 1:26

"And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them......(notice it says this 3X?) 1:27

there's alot more but I think you get my drift.....

this is doing what the world likes to do...take a verse, run with it, make it into whatever they want and ignore the other scriptures that clearly contradict their idea.

Now THIS is a creation story. Thank you Norse.

"For Audhumla, the great cow, there was no verdure upon which to feed. She stood on the verge of gloom, and found sustenance by licking constantly the huge boulders that were encrusted by salt and rime. For the space of a day she fed in this manner, until the hair of a great head appeared. On the second day the cow returned to the boulder, and ere she had ceased to lick, a head of human semblance was laid bare. On the third day a noble form leapt forth. He was endowed with great beauty, and was nimble and powerful. The name he received was Bure, and he was the first of the Asa-gods.

There followed in time more beings--noble giants and wicked giants, and gods. Mimer, who is Mind and Memory, had daughters, the chief of whom was Urd, Goddess of Fate and Queen of Life and Death. Bure had a son named Bor, who took for his wife Bestla, the sister of wise Mimer. Three sons were born to them, and the first was called Odin (spirit), the second Ve whose other name is Honer, and the third Vile, whose other names are Lodur and Loke. Odin became the chief ruler of the Asa-gods, and Honer was chief of the Vans until Loke, the usurper, became their ruler.

Now Ymer and his evil sons were moved with wrath and enmity against the family of gods, and soon warfare broke out between them. To neither side was there early victory, and the fierce conflicts were waged through the long ages ere yet the earth was formed. But, at length, the sons of Bor prevailed over their enemies and drove them back. In time there followed great slaughter, which diminished the army of evil giants until one alone remained.

It was thus that the gods achieved their triumph. Ymer was stricken down, and the victors leapt upon him and then slit open the bulging veins of his neck. A great deluge of blood gushed forth, and the whole race of giants was drowned save Bergelmer, "The Mountain-old", who with his wife took refuge on the timbers of the great World-mill, and remained there. From these are descended the Jotuns, who for ever harboured enmity against the gods.

The great World-mill of the gods was under care of Mundilfore (Lodur-Loke). Nine giant maids turned it with much violence, and the grinding of the stones made such fearsome clamour that the loudest tempests could not be heard. The great mill is larger than is the whole world, for out of it the mould of earth was ground.

When Ymer was dead, the gods took counsel among themselves, and set forth to frame the world. They laid the body of the clay-giant on the mill, and the maids ground it. The stones were smeared with blood, and the dark flesh came out as mould. Thus was earth produced, and the gods shaped it to their desire. From Ymer's bones were made the rocks and the mountains; his teeth and jaws were broken asunder, and as they went round at their labour the giant maids flung the fragments hither and thither, and these are the pebbles and boulders. The ice-cold blood of the giant became the waters of the vast engulfing sea."

Tell me how Genesis makes more sense than this.

~Zoo

Again, you make a point based on subjective interpretations of an individual's reading. I think if I took the time to look, I could probably find a lot of contradictions in the bible, given that it was written by a number of different people.

Creation myths... aren't they wonderful? And they all say exactly the same thing: out of the void, something came. And all the rest is minor detail and embellishment that says far more about the people creating the myth than it says about the origins of the world.

Myself I prefer Lovecraft's take on things: we know just enough to appreciate our condition, but never enough to do anything about it. So we tell stories instead, and then kill each other over which story is the correct one.

They're all correct. Just as they're all false. And for the same reason. The fact that almost none of you will understand that last statement is a testimony to the accuracy of Lovecraft's insight.

I know what you're saying, but I liken it to saying that red is sometimes green because a color blind person can't tell the difference.

And in effect they're both right. Maybe God wanted the colorblind person to see the world that way...so...if we extrapolate that a bit, perhaps God isn't such a hardass as we're led to believe. By that I mean He wants people to see the world differently not the same old crap over and over, but to experiment and learn and form our own conclusions about life and the things we experience. Not Jesus + ass kissing = heaven...but love, relationships, knowledge, decent human behavior, and other things that you do are much more important when getting into this whole positive afterlife.

~Zoo

Apparently God didn't want that person driving or (ironically) enjoying Christmas fully? ;p

I love this type of challange Maso....   I'm ready for ya! It was written by about 40 diff people from all walks which makes it that more amazing that they were all in agreement totally.

Look no further. Being a prophet of God, I can tell you the interpretation that is the right one. The bible, though wrought with translation errors, is supposed to say that the land produced animals according to their kind. The other parts are mistakes made by scribes who had a misconception. If it seems to be a contradiction, it is because someone made a mistake, probably your pastor.

Genesis also mentions "plant" kind as well.

He neglects to mention fungus, bacteria, archea, or protists...does that mean they don't exist?

~Zoo

You are overlooking a key understanding. Prior to the fall of man, there was no death (pain or suffering). For your theory of evolution death, pain, and suffering are essential elements for the idea of organisms to evolve. Plus, where are all the transitional organisms?

To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication.
One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27).
Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30)
A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise still remains in the realm of "science fiction".
Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.
Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc.
Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms.
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).
To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences.
In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward.
If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil record.
Consider...
The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners. Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat's principle and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an entrance ramp.
Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors. Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no fossil intermediates in the record.
Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.
Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound.
Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related which makes this an ambiguous case.
Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms (Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).
Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has been suggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.
Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no series of transitional forms to support this assertion.
The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day.
And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.
The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.
Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

Everywhere...absolutely everywhere. In fact, creatures existing today are in transitional states as it is.

Here's a small sampling from Wikipedia ( WWW Link )...though you can merely type in 'transitional fossils' or 'transitional organisms' in a search engine and get loads of information about them.

~Zoo

It is amazing how much research this guy did.. from sources published decades ago.

Some of his points are interesting.



Well, I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I am pretty sure those are not highly complex. Plus, evolutionary theory allow me to deduce that the Cambrian rocks are not at the bottom, or even these would not be there. I am sure you can do some research to prove me right.



Did you know that a lot of the machinery to synthesize proteins consists of RNA? Probably so recently that these pseudoscientists were able to play ad ignoratium in order to fallaciously substanciate a religious claim, it has been discovered that RNA molecules called "ribozymes" can catalyze such reactions. RNA was probably the first genetic material and the first material to act in biological catalysis. It is, however, pretty unstable considering all the RNAses in the environment.




Seriously, are we going to dig up the dead "irreducible complexity" argument again? Let's worry about evolution back to the original RNA before we discuss how that might have happened, which does not even really matter.



Tunicates (like the common sea squirt) and lancelets are two extant vertebrate groups with only a notochord. Seriously, stop listening to scientists who are probably dead by now. There is a reason people who allow beliefs to influence research come under criticism. They make stupid statements like this.

Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: You may object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

I should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
One may claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA and RNA, both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex.
We know the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. Where is the rest of the creature(s)?

Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those organisms which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? Even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Complex things require intelligent design!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

Praise God!

Seeing as this is an article about evidence for evolution in the Bible, he's more current than the OP.

I get the feelin' someone here is copying and pasting from creationist sites.

While you can certainly rehash idiotic talking points, you're not really accomplishing anything.

Every "argument" you bring up has been thoroughly rebutted. Maybe you should do as much research into science as you do into this crap and you might learn something.

~Zoo

Honestly, why bother trying to worry about how were were created, or why were were? Isn't it more important to just live life the best you can, whichever your faith or lack of? That's what I believe.

Every "argument" has not been thoroughly rebutted. I will grant you that fact is relative to the individual’s perception of it, and apparently you have obtained a perception based on the religion (theory) of evolution. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that true science does not support evolution nor Creation. However, it does weigh more towards intelligent design. I would be willing to bet your study of science has been through pro-evolution material.

Yes, that's what they claim. Meanwhile where's the proof of DNA of transitional beings? The half reptile/half bird? Every fossil that has been found is all bird, all reptile, all ape or all man.

No transitional forms have been found.

Matter from nothing arguments are out. They do not necesarrily point to an intelligent designer either, although admittedly that is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the universe created itself, for instance. Who can really say about that?

Irreducible complexity arguments frustrate me. I am sick of those. The premise of one is to require a scientist to imagine up a scenario that could explain the phenomenon's evolution. This can usually be done, but the point is more in that there is evidence for evolution and not for Intelligent Design, not that every evolutionary pathway can be broken down. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design. Even if evolution were somehow disproved, Creationism would only be infintesimally more likely. Attacking science does not benefit religion's credibility.




Seriously, do you want me to propose ways these could have happened? I actually could, but I will not. It is not important. How about I give you a small piece of concrete evidence, say molecular homology. Now, evolution is the accepted theory because I have credible evidence. Show me yours.