If Genesis isn't literal, and God used Evolution instead...

thekawasakikid · #1 25th October 2003, 07:45 PM

I've read some of your posts and I'm looking for some help and maybe enlightenment! I struggled while studying Zoology to resolve the differences between the teaching I'd received at Church and the evidence presented for evolutionary theory at university. Since then, I've cobbled together my own rudimentary 'understanding' of how creation and evolution fit together. I pretty much keep my views to myself these days because to be anti-evolution is seen to be, by some, as a more important and necessary pre-cursor to salvation than baptism, or maybe even faith!

Anyhow, maybe the background helps, maybe you're bored. I've been impressed with how many of you, whichever side of the divide you fall on, eloquently, passionately and yet kindly put forward your views and beliefs on this subject, but one thing has me stumped - in particular in relation to the thread regarding macro-evolution vs creation - it seems you're arguing for a Darwinian evolution, similar to what's taught (or was when I was there) in schools, etc. How far does this go? Is the Creation account entirely false? If we evolved from a common ancestor, at what point did God make man in His own image, or is that made up too?

Sorry my initial post is this long, if you've got this far, you deserve a medal... or a further evolutionary adaptation!

ThePhoenix · #2 25th October 2003, 07:56 PM

I don't know what message boards you've been posting on, but a post isn't long until it hits 1500 words around here. Anyway, glad to have you here, and I hope you learn something, I've sure learned a lot (of course most people don't have as much to learn as I do).

Ark Guy · #3 25th October 2003, 11:19 PM

kawasakikid,
There is absolutly no way that the bible can be true if evolution is also true.

Now if evolution is true, then please expalin this verse:
1TI 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

And, explain this verse:
1CO 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

How do they mesh with evolutionISM?

notto · #4 25th October 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

There is absolutly no way that the bible can be true if evolution is also true.

That's what the church said about the sun being the center of the solar system as well. The bible is as true as it has ever been.

On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
Bellarmine's letter of confirmation (The full document, page 153).

True does not equal literal. The truth of the bible doesn't depend on its description of the natural, but in its explaination of the supernatural and the spiritual.

Why do you set up God to be falsified?

A better way to state this would be:
"There is absolutely no way that MY INTERPRETATION of the bible and its meaning can be true if evolution is also true".

Nobody would argue with you there.

LewisWildermuth · #5 26th October 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by thekawasakikid

I've read some of your posts and I'm looking for some help and maybe enlightenment! I struggled while studying Zoology to resolve the differences between the teaching I'd received at Church and the evidence presented for evolutionary theory at university. Since then, I've cobbled together my own rudimentary 'understanding' of how creation and evolution fit together. I pretty much keep my views to myself these days because to be anti-evolution is seen to be, by some, as a more important and necessary pre-cursor to salvation than baptism, or maybe even faith!

I agree that a growing movement in creationist circles does seem to be pushing creationism as a necesary foundation of salvation and is one of the reasons I am here posting the other side of the argument. I personaly don't care if one is a creationist or not, as long as they do not lie about what sience is really saying.

Anyhow, maybe the background helps, maybe you're bored. I've been impressed with how many of you, whichever side of the divide you fall on, eloquently, passionately and yet kindly put forward your views and beliefs on this subject, but one thing has me stumped - in particular in relation to the thread regarding macro-evolution vs creation - it seems you're arguing for a Darwinian evolution, similar to what's taught (or was when I was there) in schools, etc. How far does this go? Is the Creation account entirely false? If we evolved from a common ancestor, at what point did God make man in His own image, or is that made up too?

First off, the only ones that call the creation story a lie (or false or made up) are atheists and creationists, they are an odd set of bedfellows in the belief that if the Bible is not literal then it is false.

For the most part T/E's look upon the creation stories, flood, and the like as parables, stories that lead use to a better understanding of God and our place in the universe. That is a big difference from saying something is a lie and/or ignoring it.

As far as evolution, I see nothing scientificaly wrong with the theory and no reason not to provisionaly accept it, just like any other scientific theory.

Sorry my initial post is this long, if you've got this far, you deserve a medal... or a further evolutionary adaptation!

No problem.

Anthony · #6 26th October 2003, 12:11 AM

Here is an interesting Discovery Channel summary of their show on how genetic research shows how we all came from one common ancestor.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...e/realeve.html

LewisWildermuth · #7 26th October 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Anthony

Here is an interesting Discovery Channel summary of their show on how genetic research shows how we all came from one common ancestor.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...e/realeve.html

Yes, genetics has become one of the strongest evidences for evolution there is.

Buck72 · #8 26th October 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by thekawasakikid

How far does this go? Is the Creation account entirely false? If we evolved from a common ancestor, at what point did God make man in His own image, or is that made up too?

Sorry my initial post is this long, if you've got this far, you deserve a medal... or a further evolutionary adaptation!

This matter goes excruciatingly far - as far as it can go within the seemingly endless thoughts of mankind. The Bible spells it out clearly enough in only two chapters, with later reference throughout the subsequent books of the Bible, repeatedly validating the Genesis account. God uses most of the Bible to explain sin and its devastating consequences and the need for redemption (which He provided free of charge!)

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (No billions of years here)

Kawasaki kid, your post was not too long - mine are ridiculously long, but I fill them up mostly with Bible verses (this being a Christian forum and all!)

Ark Guy · #9 26th October 2003, 09:48 AM

Buck72.....the problem is that you filter your bible through the bible. You compare scripture to scripture. You use hermenuitics...not the science of fallible mans interpretition of history called evolutionISM.

notto · #10 26th October 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

Buck72.....the problem is that you filter your bible through the bible. You compare scripture to scripture. You use hermenuitics...not the science of fallible mans interpretition of history called evolutionISM.

So what did those who stated that the sun as the center of the solar system was heresy do wrong? Where was their interpretation incorrect?