Origins and the Bible

ok steve here is some questions i have ,i was reading about dinasaurs and evolution ,from a national geographic and it has me questioning God and his creation as opposed to the Bible they are very contradicting and as science seems to proven the earth and its inhabitants have been around for billions of years

First of all, the Bible doesn't teach that the earth is only a few days older than Adam. Genesis 1 says that before the seven day creation "The EARTH was formless and void and was covered by the DEEP" The earth already existed before the seven day creation, which means that it was a re-creation, rather than the initial creation.

There is other Biblical evidence for that-- in Psalm 74:12-17, it talks about a battle that God had with Leviathan BEFORE the seven day creation (talked about in the latter part of the passage). So this is how creation works out in the Bible-- God created the earth sometime in the past, we don't know when or how. Then there was a terrible, chaotic war between God and other spiritual powers that threw the earth into chaos, and the ocean covered all of the earth. Then God began re-creating the world, with the current species and land forms we have.

Now, there are a lot of gaps in the Bible, here. We know nothing between the creation of the world and the war. What happened there? Scientists who have studied the fossil record have discovered something interesting. That species, rather than evolving over a long period of time, would suddenly spout in a revatively short period of time-- ten thousand years, perhaps-- and then remain stable for a long period of time. Then, there would occur some catastrophe which would kill off most, but not all, species, and then there would be a quick period of new species appearing again.

Frankly, I think this works with what we know about the Bible pretty well. God created the world and then populated his world-- this creation was done not just by God but by the "Sons of God", or angels, including Satan. Once they had made a level of creation they were satisfied with, they left it alone, to see what would happen. Then they would "wipe the board" with some kind of disaster, and begin the creation process again, building on what they had already creating, but making it more complex, more interesting. This time, say, with dinosaurs. Then they let it go for a while. Then they decided to "wipe the board" again, and begin with a new creation, building on the old one, but getting rid of the species they decided didn't work-- like dinosaurs. The battle with Leviathan effectively "wiped the board" again, and then God made a new creation. And then we have the flood which "wiped the board" again, but instead of creating new species-- so it seems, but he might have-- he allowed the earth to re-populate with the creatures on the ark.

Does this dispute evolution? No-- it is just one explanation of the fossil record. Those who don't believe that God and angels have been changing the earth for millions of years won't ever accept it-- but they can't disprove it, either, for the fossil record agrees with it. And if evolution worked the way they said, then why didn't species evolve evenly, over all the times? But the fact is, they didn't. The fossil record proves it.

So why does the fossil record show that the less complex creatures were earlier and the more complex creatures later? Doesn't this prove evolution originated the species? No. If that were true, then computer programs over the last thirty years were caused by evolution. Because computer programs now are much more complex than thirty years ago, and we can display a growth of complexity over a period of time.

Increasing complexity is how intelligent design works as well. If the angels were busy making species, on and off, for a period of millions of years, then why shouldn't they build on what they have already created? Why should anyone think that it wouldn't be from less complex to more, improving as they move on. Frankly, I think that the fossil record better displays intelligent design rather than strict evolution.

Of course, this is a matter of speculation and faith, rather than pure science. But saying that evolution without intelligent design naturally caused the origin of all species is also speculation and faith, rather than pure science. Pure science only says-- "This is what we found, this is the evidence", the conclusion from that evidence belongs to philosophy.

We have to say that evolution exists as a force that changes species. I don't have any problem with that. To say that there was no person involved behind those changes is speculation. I chose to agree with Jesus and the Bible.