Yet another example of astonishing fossil preservation

[Kev]

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

[Andre]

Hey Andre they are some interesting questions you pose and in regards to evolution being the possible tool that God used to create the universe and lead eventually to life as we know it is a nice idea, and looks to be a peaceful compromise but it only works if you are a general deist, i.e you believe in a God but not the God of the Bible.
You realise Im going to have to google Deist.

Evolution is diametrically opposed to the Bible.





I agree, but only on the monkey into man part of the term.

Right now some of us are evolving into a better species while others are de-evolving into a cess pit more animalistic existance is what is actually occuring.

Let me explain.

Firstly the Bible claims that the world was created perfect. There was no death until Adam's sin, all the animals, and man ate only plants, the Bible is explicit on this.

Stars, galaxys etc also die.

Evolution of course requires the Garden of Eden to be built upon the bones of millions of ancestors, God's 'perfect' creation coming about as the result of billions of years of death and a brutal natural arms race between predator and prey.

If you are a deist or a theist then such an idea is acceptable but it's completely incompatible to the Biblical God of love.

I see the monkey into man being totally incompatable: but to further evolve from our choices surley you can see we are doing that on a few different levels mentally ,spiritiually some physically .


(challenge question for 4)

Isnt jealousy,judgment and siding with chosen armies also logically incompatible with the Biblical God of Love?

Secondly the Bible makes it clear that death came as a result of sin, and that that sin is spread to all of the human race as we are all children of Adam.

Christ came to redeem us from that sin, and he came as the Second Adam as the New Testament calls him.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and a literal fall in sin then Christs redemptive mission makes no sense. He came to redeem us from our sin, a sin that if evolution is true, we never contracted in the first place, as there was no perfect world, no fall from grace, no Adam, no Eve etc.

The world is perfect, it is man who is for a time lost.

Have you seen the kabalistic tree of life?
It is an expansion of the seed of life brought forth from the to be named later..( plutonic solids).

and all accumulate and form into the flower of life.

Its not a real tree with apples growing off it.

It is the point in this time when what was ment to remain holy and singular became plural and reproduced into duality creating a separate tree of life that has an ending.

The ancient from many different areas including the Jews maped it out geometrically.

So to your question, if you a deist, a believer in a God of your own making, or you believe in an intelligent 'energy' if you will, then there is no problem in grafting evolution and God together.

If you believe the Bible however you can only accept evolution by disregarding and relegating to myth much of the essential Bible message.

Suprisingly athiests like Richard Dawkins understand this much better than most Christians who don't realise the contradiction and attempt to accept both beliefs.

Dawkins has only contempt for those Christians who profess to accept evolution and delights in pointing out the illogical nature of their position. I for one completely agree with him on this.

Like athiestic scientists Christians should be fundamentalists and stand up for their faith, basing their beliefs on God's Word over man's opinions.

Im under the impression Gods words were actually physically written down by a mans hand.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that macro evolution (from molecues to man) is a completely failed theory and Christians should be bolder in their faith and stick to what they believe despite what the scientific experts tell us.

Sadly few people have faith in their convictions any more and, largely as a result of watered down religion have by and large turned into sheep and will accept uncritically what the men in white coats tell them.

As for God creating light being a feature of the Big Bang, again you can try and reconcile conflicting ideas in this way if you wish to try and force a round peg into a square hole but there is no need.

I cant see any conflict in just a term ,I think conflict only arises from within duality, I cant see how God would have any part in it.

I believe in creation by God and therefore any ideas of a Big Bang are meaningless to me.

Until the next megga volcano eh?

When God said 'Let there be light' he meant 'Let there be light', I see no reason to speculate a massive fiery explosion.

Why not? An outward explosion isnt just the soul claim of evolution through apes or monkeys is it?

What light anyway Edisons

I understand that my convictions seem almost backwards and retarded in this modern age but I have no shame in saying what I believe.

Good on you.

Mortal man is born into this world blind and helpless, groping futiley for the corners of a circular room.

(Its catchy, but you made that up)

The reality is man on his own is no closer to understanding the how's and the why's regarding our existence than they were several thousand years ago.

There were Greek evolutionists over 600 years before the birth of Christ. The idea is nothing new, as the Bible says 'There is nothing new under the Sun'.

Regarding evolution, the best I can say is what Paul said to Timothy

'For the time will come when man will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead to suit their own desires they will gather around themselves teachers who tell them what their itching ears want to hear'.

Or as he told the Romans

'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.'

Are you sure he was chatting to Timothy about 'evolution' and not a false religon that was to come and take over their whole new message?


So whilst I respect your opinion regarding an unlikely marrying of the two diametrically opposed belief systems, I reject it totally and put my faith soley in what God says, rather than man.

It was man who wrote down what 'God said'.
Other men have since reshaped it to suit their own requirments: look at the Vatican (their murderous history) their take over of the original Christain religion and its message, you will know the enemy through their deeds.

Of course I try not to think about the bits that would condemn sex before marriage, the selling of illegal pirate dvd's, the endless lust for porn but hey that is what forgiveness is for right?

We live in hope.

[Kev]

Hey Andre, regarding evolution in the sense you do there is less conflict. When I talk about the evolution I am specifically talking about the molecues to man grand theory and not the fact that people can evolve spiritually.

Even here though I would disagree to an extent. It is my belief that 'the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually' and 'there is none that do good, not even one', backed up with 'there will be terrible unGodliness in the last days', all of which lead me to believe that spiritualy enlightenment and moral progression is not happening at all, morality and spirituality are dying and decaying every bit as much as the physical universe in which we live.

Whilst I certainly believe individuals can improve, the overall trend is definitely downwards.

As for judgement and God's wrath I am with you 100% in that I cannot understand it.

All I can say is that God is Love, but He is also Holy and Just, and a fair and just God must administer justice for offenses caused otherwise people would be getting away with sin, which would mean some people (including God) would not be getting justice for damage inflicted upon them.

Truly I believe that none are innocent, all of us have hurt somebody or something, often without realising in ways we can't see, buying goods that were made with child slavery, polluting the planet and causing death or destruction of God's earth, everyone has played some part in the sins of the world and a Just God must surely see to it that these offenses are set right, to restore the balance as it were.

I can only say regarding punishment and wrath that clearly God does not wish it for us, to the point that He chose to sacrifice His only Son and offer Him up as a scapegoat for us if we would only accept it.

Even in the Old Testament God's wrath was tempered with mercy and compassion. When Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of life they suffered the wrath of God and His judgement. But he was also merciful. He made them coats of animal skin to clothe them. When Cain slew Abel, he put a mark on Cain to ensure that nobody would kill him in retaliation. Prior to all of his judgements, both against Isreal, and the surrounding nations, He sent warnings and offers of mercy. But His prophets were stoned to death and killed! Likewise He has built His Church now to proclaim the message of God's coming judgement, but also of His love and mercy for all those who ask for forgiveness and accept His free offer of salvation.

I'm not really familiar with the Kabbalistic tree of life. It sounds interesting but it is completely clear and beyond doubt from scripture that Jesus believed in a literal Adam and a literal fruit, and a literal fall from grace, along with a literal Noah, so if I am to believe in Him and His resurrection and redemptive mission I must also accept what He believed in and said.


The creation story in my mind simply requires no comparison to the scientific account and just because science believes in a Big Bang does not mean I have to give it any credence whatsoever. The Bible just puts 'God said 'Let there be light', and that's it, so that's all I believe.

Exactly what that light source was I don't know although it's clear it was not the sun as that was created on day 4.

Am I crazy enough to believe God could have lit the earth for three days without a sun? Yes I am, I don't look at the universe as it is now and try and work backwards to see how it was all put together. I believe the creator of the universe could create it in any order he liked just a human computer programmer could create an artificial world on computer and give light without a sun.


Was he talking about false religion rather than evolution? Of course Paul was writing to a specific head of a specific church dealing with specific problems related to that time, however the application is timeless, and evolution IS a false religion.

The beliefs that the universe evolved thanks to some mystical process and that all of life is directly related and arose from billions of years cycle of reproduction and death, culminating in man finally appearing IS a religious belief system.

It is the religion of man, attempting to replace the supernatural with natural, removing God and placing man at the centre of his own destiny, man is God. It's the oldest anti religion of all, it's what mankind has always done right since the time of Adam and the Serpent managed to create doubt in Eve by asking 'Did God really say....?'