At 10:15 PM 11/9/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>I'm not sure a verse saying "animals reproduce animals after their kind"
>with animal as the subject and object of the sentence is really what you
>are looking for. Obviously, animals do reproduce animals after their kind;
>that is procreation. But the question is not about their procreation, but
>their original creation. "It is He (God) who made us, and not we
>ourselves." (Psalm 100:3) We are His creatures -- we are not our own --
>all through the Bible.
>
The point of what I wrote is that one cannot use a verse to rule out the
morphological change from one form to another. The Bible doesn't rule it
out. And I might add, animals do not produce animals EXACTLY like
themselves. Otherwise I would look exactly like my father or mother.
>Do you see in Scripture any verse saying that animals reproduce and change
>into other kinds of animals?
Maybe not exactly that, but I do see a Biblical description of exactly what
evolutionists said happened.
Genesis 1:11 (NIV) Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation:
seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,
according to their various kinds." And it was so.
Genesis 1:12 (NIV) The land produced vegetation:
Notice that Genesis 1:12 does NOT say GOD produced vegetation. The LAND
produced vegetation. When one considers that ultimately evolution teaches
that evolution teaches that the inorganic chemicals in the land produced
organic plants, I would say that this verse does a good job of describing
secondary causation.
One could interpret Genesis 1:22 and other statements like it as being
consistent with evolution.
Genesis 1:22 (NIV) God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in
number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the
earth."
What exactly is supposed to increase here? One could say that each species
was supposed to increase its population, or one could interpret that as
meaning that the TYPES of birds were supposed to increase in number.
Now before you rule this latter interpretation out because it is
inconsistent with the traditional interpretation of scripture, I would like
to point out that the traditional interpretation of scripture was generated
at a time prior to the consideration of evolution. So to rule out this
interpretation on that grounds begs the question.
I would also like to note that when Genesis 1:28 says,
Genesis 1:28 (NIV) God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
That it too can be interpreted in the above manner. There have been at
least 3 different types of men on the earth, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens
neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. One could throw int Homo
Heidelbergensis if they wanted. And the first man to subdue the old world
was Homo erectus who lived from Africa to Europe to SE Asia by 1.6 million
years ago. H. erectus crossed the ocean 700,000+ years ago
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm