Two Simple Questions

As simple as possible: evolution is the process from the beginning on how life formed and continue to form / evolve into all existing species ....... Evolution is man's scientific theory/analogy based on design and fossil evidence on how all living species came to be.


Not to be quite frank we don't know what process God used or how he used it. Scripture only informs us that God is the reason the earth and its inhabitants exist. Life forms show evidence of intelligent design even as I believe it was Hawkins said ( though he didn't mean a personal God as we view him)

We can just analyze from scripture

1) God told the Earth to bring forth plants after their kind
2) God told the waters to bring forth living creatures in abundance after their kind 3) God told the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle after it's kind 4) God formed man and "placed" him in the garden in which he had prepared in the East of Eden and told man to be fruitful multiply and "replenish" the Earth

First event from the scientific point of evolution plants were first as with creation they will like to say animals but though the sponges and amoebas and sorts are classified as animals they are not - so I'll just say not referring to those so named type of animals. And they have come to the conclusion plants existed quite a few millions of years before first analyzed ......... Second event from the scientific point of view the waters brought forth life forms - as with the creation account. Now science will say animals were first before plants because sponges are classified as animals and they say sponges can feel pain - how do they know.
I am not speaking of the animal they call the sponges, ((sponges have no nervous system, no digestive system, no circulatory system, no organs)) From the scientific point of view before there were land Beast, marine life existed, then the fowls. Much of the Dinosaurs had feathers; and to have feathers means you are a bird. So according to both science and creation marine life and fowl _ (dinosaurs/birds (and all birds don't fly) ............. Third event from the scientific point of view beast and cattle were next as evolution was taking its course and as with the creation account beast and cattle were next............. Forth event from the scientific viewpoint science places the evolution of man from a primate type animal and as with creation account man was next, only man was formed by God and placed in the garden. *God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man*

I don't believe in the process of evolution as it is taught ..... But the reproduction after it's kind spoken of in the Bible deals with procreation/reproduction (basically requiring male and female) that is not what evolution means. Evolution which is defined as ::::: The gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex life form has nothing to do with procreation.

Evolution by natural selection refers to organisms that are better adapted to their environment, being more likely to pass those adaptive traits to their offspring, with the result that over many generations, the species changes or "evolves." This was first described by the Roman poet Lucretius thousands of years ago. The French biologist Lamarcke proposed that acquired traits could be passed down (for example a giraffe straining to reach leaves higher up on a tree would gradually grow a longer neck, and its offspring would inherit this). Lamarcke's theory was found to be incorrect, but in France, he's still considered the "father of evolution" as he at least proposed a theory.

Darwin is mainly recognized for his efforts in making rigorous scientific observations and proposing the theory of natural selection which is still accepted today. More recent modifications include "phyletic gradualism," or the theory that evolution occurs slowly and smoothly, and "punctuated equilibrium," or long periods with no change, interspersed with short periods of very fast change. Darwin was unaware of genetics, as Mendel's pioneering work had not been done yet, so he had no mechanism for explaining how traits were passed down.

Whether this contradicts the Bible depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church sees no contradiction and allows for evolution. Some fundamentalist Christian churches oppose evolution as they believe several Bible verses don't allow for it. Much of this opposition is also politically motivated.

The theory of evolution is an example of how science is not a house of cards, where if one thing is defeated, the entire edifice crumbles. It's more like a puzzle where every piece fits together. Evolution fits in with other aspects of our understanding of biology and behavioral science.

Evolution within a species adapting to its environment... you dont see species changing to another species... octopus breathing air... walking on land... but it can adapt to warmer waters, still swimming... its skin may change.... but its still living in water...

Evolution is an observable process it's not like people are guessing. It's not incompatible with religious belief unless you're a biblical literalist which is contrary to basic theology.

You can have your faith without denying reality.

1. Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over time through descent with modification.

2. Yes, if one holds that animals were all created at around the same time in more or less their present form.

But also no in that evolution does not suggest that a reptile will make a bird. Rather it says that a reptile will make a reptile that is a little different to itself but largely the same. That slightly different reptile will have offspring that are slightly different to it as well and these small changes compound over hundreds and thousands of generations until so many changes have occurred that the descendant population is now a bird.

Also yes one considers the order of creation in Genesis to be accurate.

I figure evolution is the detailed version and creation is the short version .

Eg: someone asks me where I got the wonderful lasagna from, so I say "I made it".
I don't tell them the whole rigmarole of how I made it as it's not cuiclal to the conversation .

I figure they are both the same thing .

1. The commonly accepted definition of evolution is that every living species has a common ancestor.

2. No

Have we done this already? How do you reconcile the two?