Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand why some Christians choose not to believe in evolution, but the fact is, there's a great case for evolution in Genesis. Due to modern science, it was not until just recently that people started making a big deal about evolution and Genesis. A lot of people are taking 6 creation days to mean 24 hour days, but that's not the case according to Genesis. For example, on the fourth day the Bible says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years". It goes on further to say that then, the moon and the sun were created.
Now, this is when the essence of time began. For it is by the sun and moon that we measure the times of the day. However, the previous 3 days of Genesis could have been millions or billions of years of genetic evolution in the making.
There are many more examples, but I just wanted to point this one out. There's still a missing link in evolution, but either way, evolution does not prove God's non-existance nor does it disprove the authenticity of the Bible.
I'll admit I haven't read all 12 pages of this discussion. (Who has the time?) So if this has already been brought up, my apologies. Anyway, here goes...
I am neither a scientist nor a trained theologian, but what little I know of both leads me to believe that evolution is right there in Genesis.
Only three times did God create ex nihilo, speaking what Genesis gives as the word bara' in Hebrew/Aramaic. Bara' roughly means "create" or "be" as I understand it. Those three times were for the creation of matter (Genesis 1:1), the creation of life (Genesis 1:21), and the spirit of man (Gensis 1:27).
Throughout the rest of the creation account in Genesis, it says God "brought forth" or "formed" (depending on the translation you're reading). As in "Let the waters bring forth..." or "let the earth bring forth..."
So only three times did God create from nothing. Throughout the rest of the Genesis account, God is making or creating from pre-existing matter. How? I don't know. Genesis doesn't tell us because Genesis is not a science book. Genesis is not giving us the intricate details of how God created. It is telling us why God created.
We can't use Genesis to explain how God created any more than the scientist can use the fossil record to explain why.
I understand Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a framework within which to understand what we observe today as it relates to God's creation. I completely agree Genesis explains why He created. You're also right in that Genesis does not blatently state how God created. But does that automatically mean evolution is correct by default? I don't believe so. God created supernaturally. We'll never completely understand the how in regards to that. This is why evolution IMO is nothing but a philosophy, a belief, a framework in its own right which does try to explain origins without the need for God or anything supernatural.
I know it's been said before but God created (bara) everything and designed everything to reproduce after their kind. This is stated 10 times in Genesis 1. That leads me to believe things weren't created in one form and then evolved into a completly separate and distinctly different form. We observe today that things reproduce after their kind, just as God intended, as stated in His word.
Also, the argument you use does not stand, IMO, because the Hebrew words "bara" (to shape/create) and "asah" (to do or make) are used interchangably throughout scripture, not just in Genesis. To make such a strong distinction between "bara" and "asah" in Genesis is as unjustified as making a distinction between “create” and “make” in English.
I understand why some Christians choose not to believe in evolution, but the fact is, there's a great case for evolution in Genesis. Due to modern science, it was not until just recently that people started making a big deal about evolution and Genesis. A lot of people are taking 6 creation days to mean 24 hour days, but that's not the case according to Genesis. For example, on the fourth day the Bible says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years". It goes on further to say that then, the moon and the sun were created.
Now, this is when the essence of time began. For it is by the sun and moon that we measure the times of the day. However, the previous 3 days of Genesis could have been millions or billions of years of genetic evolution in the making.
There are many more examples, but I just wanted to point this one out. There's still a missing link in evolution, but either way, evolution does not prove God's non-existance nor does it disprove the authenticity of the Bible.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, TexasNick, but I respectfully disagree. Genesis states (my loose paraphrase here) there was evening and morning the # day for each of the days of creation. There was light on the first day without the sun and darkness on the first day without the moon. This is the standard by which Jews measured a normal, 24-hour day and they still do to this day, from sundown to sundown. The week of creation was the pattern for our workweek and the setting aside the Sabbath day as holy as outlined in Exodus 20:8-11.
I understand belief in evolution does not necessarily impact one's salvation or belief in God. But it undermines the authority of God's word, IMO. If we can 're-interpret' Genesis to fit our concept of how we came to be, then what other parts of the bible do we need to 're-interpret' to conform with the first re-interpretation? It is my belief and understanding we do not need to re-interpret Genesis in any way. It's plain meaning is evident to anyone who reads it. It's plain meaning clearly contradicts evolution's explanation of origins, which is why it is a contentious issue.
There are many more examples, but I just wanted to point this one out. There's still a missing link in evolution, but either way, evolution does not prove God's non-existance nor does it disprove the authenticity of the Bible.
You are correct, evolution does not prove God's non-existence but it, along with just about every other field of science, have proven that the Genesis account is not possible. I don't know what you want to make of that... I suppose that's up to you, but I think you at least have an open mind to learning.
Mams1559 (and maybe GSCTroop)
Thanks for your comments and I do understand what you are saying.
This is of course a Controversial issue among Christians. We literally interpret this to mean that God created the universe in 6 consecutive 24 hour days. Thats one possible interpretation of the text. But, it goes massive in the face of modern science. However, our literal Genesis interpretation is a product of modern thinking. Early church fathers and Rabbis had no problem with Genesis. For example, there are indications in the text itself that it does not mean 6 24-hour days. I say this not in the basis of trying to hide from modern science.
Lets read the text.
In the first part, the word "day" in Hebrew Rome text does not reflect the 24 hour period of time. In fact, when you look at Genesis chapter 2 and verse 4 it summarizes the entire creation week by saying, in second part of verse 4, "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"--it refers to the whole creation week as one day. Moreover, the 7th day is clearly not a 24 hour day. The 7th day in which God rested is still going on--we are still in the 7th day. At least the 7th day is not intended to be a literal day.
Other indicators are ...verse 11; "LET the earth bring forth vegetation". Notice he doesn't say "let there be" and BOOM! Instead he says let the earth bring forth vegetation, the seas, etc. now think about this ..we all know how long it takes for an apple seed to germinate, bring fourth a plant and eventually the apple. This is not a Disney cartoon where we see instant versions of plants and objects being created.
I can't persuade myself into thinking that this original author meant for us to take this literally. It's interesting that the sun and the moon were not even created until the 4th day for time.
It's very interesting when you read ancient Rabbis and early church fathers, they did not take this literally either. It was not until modern science that we really started questioning this chapter.
I can't persuade myself into thinking that this original author meant for us to take this literally. It's interesting that the sun and the moon were not even created until the 4th day for time.
It's very interesting when you read ancient Rabbis and early church fathers, they did not take this literally either.
I agree with you 100% up until here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasNick
It was not until modern science that we really started questioning this chapter.
Modern science had been onhand long before this started become such a contentious issue. This started becoming a problem, as near as I can tell, with the rise of evangelical fundamentalism.
Contrary to how most people now understand the word, the term "fundamentalist" does not mean someone with a strict understanding of their religious beliefs. It has a very specific meaning. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, various British and American conservative evangelicals wrote about the so-called "fundamentals of faith," which were in large part a reaction against non-literal Biblical interpretation, Darwinism, Catholicism, etc. Their so-called "fundamentals of faith" (what every true Christian must believe) were basically the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Fundamentalists insisted on a literal interpretation of the account of creation in Genesis 1-2 --- something that most Christians had never believed. Which put them into direct conflict with evolution, and here we are today.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the Bible as being 'close' scientifically. It comes nowhere near it. You can read around it all that you want to and if it helps you with your faith than fine. Unfortunately what ID/Creationism has done is try to essentially drive a wedge between two things. It's basically said "Believe in evolution and follow satan or believe in ID and be with God." That's not science. It's certainly not unbiased and what kills me is that this crap wants to be passed off in schools.
Just so you know, Michael Behe, one of the 'leaders' of the ID movement admitted under oath at the Dover, Pennsylvania trial that if we expanded ID into the scientific realm than we'd have to also include alchemy, astrology, and downright magic. That's not science it's 'poofness'.
ID has an agenda to push religion. And although for you fine folks on this board it may seem 'OK' it should not be taken as scientific. If ID were 'scientific' in nature (what an oxymoron ) than they wouldn't have had to have done the massive editing in their "Pandas to People" textbook that caused such a raucous uproar Pennsylvania. So, we really can't stop with just evolution as far as ID is concerned. We have to take out geology and paleontology, we have to take out physics, chemistry, big chunks of biology not directly dealing with evolution, and on and on and on because evolution is based not only on biology but ALL of those other sciences as well. And guess what? They have all fit the profile of exactly what should happen per Darwin. That's quite amazing since genetics hadn't even been discovered yet when Darwin wrote Origin of Species.
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is this: I suppose whatever you want to believe is fine. If you want to believe the Earth is a mere 6000 years old based on the interpretation of the Bible than have at it but don't be surprised if people call you willfully ignorant of the facts.
If you want to believe that a literal interpretation of a 'day' is much different than how it's worded in the Bible than that's up to you as well and I applaud your efforts for at least being semi-reasonable and recognizing all the evidence that science (not just evolution) has come up with.
The thing with ID/Creationism is that it pushes a very specific agenda. When you boil it down to the root you find something very interesting... ID/Creationism is based around a Genesis account of the Bible. I find that interesting since every time they try to put it into schools they say it's not pushing religion. Hmmmmm.... why would they need to masquerade as 'science' in order to push a religion???
I suggest that people be skeptical of everything to include modern day science. However, it would seem to me, that even the most fundamental Christian would possibly see that ID is not behaving (so to speak) in what it's intent is. If you want to call it science than we need scientific evidence. So far, every irreducibly complex example (a cornerstone of ID 'science') has been easily, easily refutable and most of them haven't even needed experiments. There's no need to lie to push an agenda in science. If science doesn't know the answer it says so. Making stuff up only hinders your credibility in the long run and that's what the problem with ID/Creationism is.
Please note that I am a Biblical Creationists not an IDT.* As much as Creationists agree with ID theorists, and as much as evolutionists want to lump the 2 together, nevertheless, they are NOT the same, both camps actually deny association with each other.* Feel free to visit the link below to see the difference:
Please note that I am a Biblical Creationists not an IDT.* As much as Creationists agree with ID theorists, and as much as evolutionists want to lump the 2 together, nevertheless, they are NOT the same, both camps actually deny association with each other.* Feel free to visit the link below to see the difference:
Well than you'll have absolutely no problem explaining to me why it was in 1987 that the book Creationists tried to push into the schools (Pandas and People) was filled with the words "Creation, Creationism, Creationist" and after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, every single one of those words were replaced with "Intelligent Design". ID is Creationism. In fact, after the court subpoenaed (sp?) the publisher of the book to produce the original copy this came to light. What's even funnier is that the judge who presided over this was a Bush appointed, self professed believer that the two should be taught side by side (ID and Evolution). That is, of course, until the trial occurred and he found out what the real agenda behind ID was. I suggest you research the Dover trial a little more. Here's an excellent video (albeit approx 2 hours long) from one of the people who testified at the trial. He was on the side of evolution, but his story echoes the exact sentiments of the NOVA video I'm also going to post. Furthermore, both of those testimonies link up with the article I'm also going to post in regards to how the Intelligent Design movement is Creationism in disguise.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg (this is Ken Miller, a professed believer, talking about the results, occurances, and arguments of the Dover trial) Don't watch it if you can't handle the truth.
Unfortunately what ID/Creationism has done is try to essentially drive a wedge between two things. It's basically said "Believe in evolution and follow satan or believe in ID and be with God." That's not science. It's certainly not unbiased and what kills me is that this crap wants to be passed off in schools.
First, I'll reiterate what was stated above, and that which I have stated before..... ID and biblical creationism are NOT the same thing. They may be similar in some respects, but they are different and I, as a biblical creationist, do not agree with ID.
Second, I'll state again that most biblical creationists do not want creationism taught in schools. The teachers teaching it would probably get it wrong because half wouldn't want anything to do with it in the first place. As far as I'm aware after reading many creationist websites, they're only seeking to have the flaws of evolution exposed... flaws pointed out by scientists, secular or otherwise... and not touted as "absolute fact/truth".
Third, I've never ever stated believing in evolution equates with following satan. And actually, if that has been said by believers they're wrong. What I and many others like me have said is trying to fit evolution within a biblical framework is inconsistent with their beliefs. It does not have any bearing on one's salvation. Either you're saved or your not. Evolution is not involved in the salvation equation. I merely state those who try to fit evolution into the bible are IMO being inconsistent. That's it. Anyone who says what you've stated above is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
I suggest that people be skeptical of everything to include modern day science. ...<snipped>...There's no need to lie to push an agenda in science. If science doesn't know the answer it says so. Making stuff up only hinders your credibility in the long run and that's what the problem with ID/Creationism is.
I agree with your first sentence. Be skeptical. As far as your other thoughts, you can very easily replace the words ID/creationism with evolutionary teachings. If you want to talk about things being made up, what about the frauds of evolution some of which are still, to this very day, being portrayed as facts and evidence? For example:
the Piltdown man
Ernest Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation
horse evolution
peppered moths
Archaeoraptor the feathered dinosaur
But even after these, and others, evolution still is seen as untouchable and unquestionably true. Like you said, be skeptical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) than they wouldn't have had to have done the massive editing in their "Pandas to People" textbook that caused such a raucous uproar Pennsylvania. So, we really can't stop with just evolution as far as ID is concerned. We have to take out geology and paleontology, we have to take out physics, chemistry, big chunks of biology not directly dealing with evolution, and on and on and on because evolution is based not only on biology but ALL of those other sciences as well. And guess what? They have all fit the profile of exactly what should happen per Darwin. That's quite amazing since genetics hadn't even been discovered yet when Darwin wrote Origin of Species. 
