I have started to think, maybe the principle of Evolution is true: at a specific point

[Buzzard3]

Why would they be destined to die? Why couldn't they be immortal?

Read Romans 8:18-25. It suggests that God created an imperfect world in order to bring it to perfection later on.

The earth was pure and perfect it was a shadow of the new word to come.

Nowhere does the Bible say the earth was created "pure and perfect".

When God says there will be no more death on the new earth he isn't going to have immortal humans surrounded by dying animals, nor would he have done that in Eden.

I agree, but the fossil record is not Heaven nor the Garden of Eden.

You have a strange view of God if you think he would smile and look out upon the dead rotting carcasses of animals and proclaim that "very good".

The fossil records reveals millions of years of death. If that offends you, complain to God; it wasn't my fault.

Also the world is said to be groaning now. Nature itself is groaning. If it wasn't groaning at creation what does that mean? A huge change occurred.

Romans 8 suggests creation was "groaning" from the very beginning:

"the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now".

This can be read as saying suffering and death ("subjected to futility ... bondage to decay ... groaning in travail ") was a feature of creation from the beginning ... because it was "the will of him (God) who subjected it in hope". The "hope" refers to the Heavenly future, where there is no death. In other words, God deliberately created an imperfect world that featured death so that he could bring it to perfection (no death) later on.

 

[Buzzard3]

We believe they started to die at the fall and as for fossils we believe that to be mostly from the global flood.

Both beliefs are disproven by the fossil record.

The only reason people don't want to read Genesis or any of the other verses on creation literally is due to what science says.

A literal reading of Genesis has only one enemy ... scientific facts ... reality, in other words.

This is the crux of the matter. Nothing in scripture itself indicates it should be read otherwise.

...except reality.

Thinking that millions of years of death and decay are somehow okay shows just how little thought to it is given.

Who said "millions of years of death and decay are somehow okay"?

 

[Buzzard3]

The fossil record says nothing of the kind. There are fossils -that is a fact. 'Evolution' is merely the story mankind came up with to try and explain them.

The fossil record reveals changes in life-forms over time, which could be described as "evolution".

God brought about a global flood. He said everything outside the ark died.

That means the creatures that lived in water died too.

When science disagrees with the Bible it is because it is wrong, mankind is wrong.

... except when mankind misinterprets the Bible.

Remember Galileo? He used science to prove that man's interpretation of a certain Bible verse was wrong ... ditto for the science that proves that your interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

 

[coffee4u]

There's a lot of truth in what you say. It seems to me that atheists, especially, read into the fossil record want they want to see ... and most evolutionary scientists are atheists. What they want to believe is that life on earth did not need a Creator and is the result of a purely biological process that is now explained by science (Darwinism). So that is what they "see" in the fossil record ... while ignoring any evidence that contradicts their belief.

I'm not a Darwinist ... in fact I ignore most of what Darwinian scientists say. I think it's actually impossible to know what happened millions of years ago ... the fossil record only gives us snapshots of history. We don't what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B ... and we will never know and science can't prove anything. Scientists can come up with their "best scientific explanation", but that means absolutely nothing to me.

No, that's not even close to what I mean. What I mean is, the fossil record clearly tells us that a literal reading of Genesis is incorrect.
I definitely didn't mean I agree with the accepted scientific explanation (Darwinism) for the fossil record ... bcoz I reject ALL scientific theories that attempt to explain the fossil record. My explanation for the fossil record is this: "God done it".

That's true. Most people who believe in evolution have to assume that paleontologists and geologists are being objectively truthful and that their scientific claims are correct.

If it could be establised that these scientists are either liars or incompetent fools who don't know what they're doing, then I will re-access my views.

That's no doubt true of many people, but I always doubted evolution and once believed that life on earth had existed for no more than about 10,000 years. But the more I studied the science, the more I realized that my view was way wrong.

I know there are plenty of opposing views ... I've read plenty of creationist material and was even a subscriber to Creation.com magazine.

Fair enough. I think Adam was created somewhere in the 10-20 range.

Your view appears to be conflicted, yet you still believe in evolution, that God used death to shape his creation. I honestly find it very sad when Christians view of God is of a God who is happy with death and decay.
The fossil record doesn't show anything about creation, it shows the world wide flood and other catastrophes. The world as it was at creation we don't have, it changed completely after the fall.

As to scientists, I don't think they are fools per say, I think they are blind as everyone is blind.
Romans 3:11
there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God
Without God, without belief in his word what else does a person have left but pure naturalism? Either God created the world or the world created itself, those are what it boils down to.
If all they have is naturalism then that is the only explanation they have to fall back on. The idea of God or miracles can't even be a possibility.

I hope you take a deeper look, and not at creation magazine but at some of the truly great videos out there, you don't need to cling to evolution. Its not needed for fossils, and its certainly does not fit in with scripture, not in the slightest and I truly believe if God had used evolution it would run through scripture.

 

[coffee4u]

Both beliefs are disproven by the fossil record.

Shame you keep repeating their line and seem to actually believe it. The fossils do not show evolution at all, evidence of which is easy enough to find I posted one such video.
There are no links between creatures, those links are all missing. Its a shame you don't question the line you have been fed more and really dig but I certainly can't make you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Buzzard3]

Your view appears to be conflicted, yet you still believe in evolution, that God used death to shape his creation.

I never said God used death to shape his creation.

I honestly find it very sad when Christians view of God is of a God who is happy with death and decay.

I never said God is happy with death and decay.

Without God, without belief in his word what else does a person have left but pure naturalism? Either God created the world or the world created itself, those are what it boils down to.
If all they have is naturalism then that is the only explanation they have to fall back on. The idea of God or miracles can't even be a possibility.

I think the changes in life-forms revealed in the fossil record are due to many miracles ... that science has zero chance of explaining.

 

[Buzzard3]

There are no links between creatures, those links are all missing.

I never said there are "links between creatures" in the fossil record.
I don't care if there are "links" or not ... God doesn't need "links between creatures".

Its a shame you don't question the line you have been fed more

Did you read my post? I said I don't support Darwinist theory.

Btw, what do you think Romans 8:20 means?:
"the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope"

 

[coffee4u]

I think the changes in life-forms revealed in the fossil record are due to many miracles ...

There are none.

 

[coffee4u]

I never said there are "links between creatures" in the fossil record.
I don't care if there are "links" or not ... God doesn't need "links between creatures".

Did you read my post? I said I don't support Darwinist theory.

Btw, what do you think Romans 8:20 means?:
"the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope"

By this point I don't know what you believe.
You said you believed in evolution: I said that requires death for millions of years.
You claimed the fossil record showed evolution: I said it shows catastrophe.

 

[Buzzard3]

There are none.

The deepest layers contain only tiny, relatively simple organisms; in much shallower layers we find dinosaurs, for example. I would call that a change in life-forms.

 

[Buzzard3]

By this point I don't know what you believe.

That's because you mistakenly think anyone who believes in an old earth and old life is automatically a Darwinist. I'm not a Darwinist.

You said you believed in evolution: I said that requires death for millions of years.

I said the death of animals occured before Original Sin. You said "evolution requires death".

You claimed the fossil record showed evolution: I said it shows catastrophe.

By "evolution" I simply mean that the fossil record shows changes in life-forms over time. Said changes occured regardless of "catastrophies" and mass extinctions.