Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Updated, slightly edited/modified version from my original post on this...

Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4:

Day 1 and 2- The creation of the universe, formation of stars/planets, solar systems, etc, the initial formation of the earth as a planet, creation and separating of "dimensions" like the separating of the Heavenly realms and/or dimensions, from the physical ones, etc, and/or beginnings of the atmosphere and beginnings of the seas on day 2, etc... Whatever or however you interpret the "separating and dividing of waters from waters" to mean, etc, with the one above being called "heaven", etc...

Day 3- Dry land appears and is made apart from the sea or the seas, etc, earth is very "volcanic" and the sky is still dark and covered with lots of clouds of dust and ash, some light shining through but not much yet, further formation of the atmosphere, and the very beginnings of very simple, extremely primitive plant life, in the form of algae, proteins and primitive bacteria, etc, primordial ooze, etc, by the ends of day 3 that is going to become more complex in Day 4...

Day 4- Sky begins to clear up, and the volcanic activity on the earth begins to settle down a bit, plant life, now having more light, begins to become more complex forms of plant life, the "revealing" of the sun and moon and stars, etc, on the earth due to the skies clearing up, etc...

Day 5- The age or era of sea life, sea creatures and sea animals begin to come about and become more complex by the beginning of day 6, plant life continuing to evolve and become more complex in or on both the land and in the sea, etc, no land animals yet, etc...

Day 6- The age of land animals and man, land animals come about for the first time (from the sea creatures), and become more complex, till they eventually lead to man coming about, and the fall of man happens, etc, we are still in day 6 now till the results of the fall are fixed or restored, then will begin day 7...

Day 7- The age or era of the rule and reign of Christ on earth from Heaven, or Heaven and earth being one (again) results of the fall or consequences of the fall are restored or fixed or whatever, (we go back to being vegetarians, etc), and this age will last until the end of the earth and the universe as we know it, etc...


Adam and Eve could have been a special creation, in a selected by God specific region or specific area in the earth on or in or during day 6, the Garden of Eden, etc, then were cast out to be among the rest of the "evolved species", etc, two races or species possibly, etc, Cain could have been the first one to interbreed or intermix with these maybe, possibly, or the whole story could just be an allegory, revealing many, many truths to us about our species and the "spirits", and the spiritual, and mankind, and mankind's relationship with God, etc...

The way to resolve the issue of plants sating to come about on day 3 in Genesis 1, and there have not been any kind of vegetation sprouting up from the ground yet in the Garden of Eden on day 6 when Adam was made, is that, if the Garden of Eden was a literal Garden and special set apart from the rest of the world special creation, is that plants may have not been made to grow or come about yet "in that specific region" yet, during the time it was made and/or set apart on or during day 6 yet, but then was by God when He made Adam and put him there...

The question came up about the whole "evening and morning" thing, and I forgot to address it, so I said this:

Evening and morning, or morning and evening, could mean the golden years or time of an age, and then the dark times or dark era of an age, or when it was prospering and thriving and when it was falling and failing and was about over or ended or was on it's decline, etc...

"Cycles" IOW's, the turning of a tide or the change of an era, it happens in and with any system of things, or era or age of thing or things...

God Bless!

An interesting theory. Probably the best in the absence of any eye witnesses.

 

[Neogaia777]

An interesting theory. Probably the best in the absence of any eye witnesses.

Just a theoretical interpretation...

You like...?

Hoping it might "spark" some other peoples ideas and/or theories anyway...?

God Bless!

 

[His student]

"leaves absolutely no room"
But it does. Because it's a very bare bones description, leaving it open for interpretation. I have seen interpretations involving the uses of the words "made" "formed" and "created" Some people interpret "created" as God creating something from nothing, brand new, "made" and "formed" as God modifying something that already existed into a new form. Not the one I subscribe to but any inconsistency in the words itself can be seen as intentionally done for a specific interpretation.
However interesting to note, the Genesis 2 description of the creation of Adam uses the word "formed" Meaning took something that already existed, and modified it to a new form, under that interpretation.
To me Eve's creation very obviously sounds like cloning from stem cells, with modification to make her female.
Does God need to use magic to impress you or something? Is that what holds you back?

OK - I'd like to hear a fairly detailed picture of how you think the first man (and then the fist woman) came into being according to your ideas.

I know you weren't there and can't be exact. But giving you that benefit of the doubt - please give me examples.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything. But did God "form" Adam from another creature (ape etc.) with a quantum leap in one generation which He Himself orchestrated? Then did He engineer a woman within one generation from the DNA of the man? etc. etc. etc.

Again - with many possible variables understood - give me an idea of how you differ from Darwinian type evolutionists via the "quantum leap" idea and how you make that work within a generation to stay away from mere "old time" Darwinian progressive evolution.

Be as clear as you can on this idea of theistic evolution vs. regular old time evolution and I will consider your ideas.

Thanks.

 

[charsan]

Not an idiot, just interpreting scritpure a different way, perhaps uneducated or ignorant depending on how you pose your arguments.

Of course any Creationist is such to a lot of people who view Scripture in a way that is into evolution-ism. I am going to leave this thread so all the really smart people can talk and feel self important

 

[BobRyan]

Not an idiot, just interpreting scritpure a different way,

Do you really suppose that Moses was a Darwinist and/or was teaching evolutionism in that "7 day week" where "Six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made"???

If so... then once again I am going back to this really obvious detail posted here --
Yesterday at 5:51 PM #264

 

[Jamdoc]

OK - I'd like to hear a fairly detailed picture of how you think the first man (and then the fist woman) came into being according to your ideas.

I know you weren't there and can't be exact. But giving you that benefit of the doubt - please give me examples.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything. But did God "form" Adam from another creature (ape etc.) with a quantum leap in one generation which He Himself orchestrated? Then did He engineer a woman within one generation from the DNA of the man? etc. etc. etc.

Again - with many possible variables understood - give me an idea of how you differ from Darwinian type evolutionists via the "quantum leap" idea and how you make that work within a generation to stay away from mere "old time" Darwinian progressive evolution.

Be as clear as you can on this idea of theistic evolution vs. regular old time evolution and I will consider your ideas.

Thanks.

I believe God grew Adam from stem cells, using modified DNA, I am not sure of which organism he used to modify us from, perhaps one of the now extinct ape like creatures like Neanderthal or the like, but "formed" from something that previously existed, then given a spirit that animals don't have (the breath of life into his nostrils), but those creatures and other primates are the ones we share the most common with genetically. When it says "formed from dust" I have always taken that to mean made of stuff from the earth, rather than like angels, who are created of spirit only I have also always taken that verse to humble us, that we were made from something earthly rather than being purely divine, yet showing that we are favored by God, because we do have some things divine imparted to us (a spirit directly from God, and His likeness). Whether that is literally dirt, or modified from previous life genetically, we're made of mundane, earthly stuff, a humble origin. It is also all organic material, all organic chemistry, whether basic organic elements from the dirt (which would contain bacteria at the very least, still life from previous life), or cells from a previous organism.
Eve is a little more specific I find, and her creation having these details is why I think God engineered us from cells rather than just made a clay statue and breathed on it.
Genesis 2:21
See here where it says

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:

That sounds like Adam was put under anesthesia. The nature of what anesthesia was used is not clear, but we certainly know we can be induced into such a state with chemicals, no magic needed, so it could have been a chemical. It's not like God was against wiring our brain to be able to be induced into certain states and emotions with chemicals.
Where it says

and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

That sounds like Adam was opened up surgically, a rib was removed, surgically, and then Adam was closed up. Now God didn't use sutures, he would have had the ability to close up the incision with new skin healed up, that's what's described. But the purpose is the same, opened up, remove something, close up. Now why did he take a rib? Why not just scoop up some dirt and breathe the breath of life into it? Why not just speak her into existence? Because I don't think he did either of those things to create any life but the first for one. Really I don't know how the first life was created, we certainly have no means to do it ourselves, but what I do know is that God made a fantastic modifiable genetic code which would make the process of creating life from other life pretty easy for Him. Anyway, why the rib? Because ribs are a flat bone where Hematopoeisis (production of new blood cells) takes place in adults, and it is a bone that we could remove and it wouldn't cause any long term negative effects. In the marrow of ribs and your pelvis and sternum is active bone marrow that makes all your blood from stem cells in that bone marrow. So God took the rib to use the stem cells from Adam to CLONE Eve, modifying the DNA to give it 2 X chromosomes, and whatever other changes He desired.
Genesis 2:22
There's that word "made" and God is taking something that exists and altering it into something new.

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Again I'm not sure I subscribe that formed and made are linguistically consistent to mean God making something new out of something that existed prior, but in these 2 cases those words are used. It's an interesting interpretation anyway. The biggest reason why I have this belief is that it gives purpose for us having so much genetically in common with other animals, where as being created straight from dirt there's no point of it, God doesn't do things in vain.

 

[JAL]

Do you really suppose that Moses was a Darwinist and/or was teaching evolutionism in that "7 day week" where "Six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made"???

If so... then once again I am going back to this really obvious detail posted here --
Yesterday at 5:51 PM #264

This looks like the pot calling the kettle black. You're making an argument for biblical literalism when in fact you don't take it literally either. Look at your parallel:
(1) Six days you shall labor
(2) Six days the Lord made
In your view, did the Lord labor in the literal sense? No. Did He need rest in the literal sense? No. (Whereas in my own, non-traditional definition of God, the answer to both questions is actually Yes).

BTW, when 100% of Hebrew scholars are in consensus, it's admittedly an extremely weighty point but, nonetheless, they are not necessarily correct.

Moreover six long periods constitue a perfectly literal reading of the text. Here's why:

In Genesis 1, God defined a day as a period of darkness followed by a period of light - NOT as 24 hours. So where did the light come from? Not the sun, because it wasn't set in place until the 4th Day. All bibles and commentators refer 2Cor 4:4-6 back to Genesis 1. Therefore it was the (physical!) Light from Christ's face. Thus God shined His own face into the galaxy, and quenched it, six times, over 4 billion years, as to lay down His own six-day workweek as a model for us to follow, with rest on the seventh Daylight. His Light is still shining (it illuminates the heavenly city for example) and thus the 7th Galactic Daylight is still shining (it's eternal).

Over that 4 billion years, His Light also provided local 24 hour daylights to the earth (i.e. days and nights), including photosynthesis to the plants, until our sun was set in place on the 4th Galactic Day.

BTW I'm an OEC.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Hello, Flat Earth dude! Thanks for lending your support for Young Earth Creation!

Hello, blood drinking globe trotter. You're on the right side of this one, well I never. Careful, no big bang plus literal 6 day creation may by the Holy Spirit lead you to geocentrism and, in time, to the sheer horror of the beautiful FLAT EARTH truth.

 

[His student]

faith in evolutionism allows some parts of the Word of God to be accepted "as reliable" while other parts no matter how obvious are declared "uncertain" if belief in evolutionism does not fit with it.......................If your "main point" becomes the next guy's "nice to have but not important" and that is "the rule" for when to slice and dice the Word of God... pure preference... well you have a problem.

This is why I stated earlier that I want no part in theistic evolution. One liberal position almost always leads to more.

I can't be associated with even the beginning stages of an almost inevitable slide toward apostasy - therefore I stand strong against theistic evolution.

 

[JAL]

This is why I stated earlier that I want no part in theistic evolution. One liberal position almost always leads to more.

I can't be associated with even the beginning stages of an almost inevitable slide toward apostasy - therefore I stand strong against theistic evolution.

Quite possibly that's overstating the point. Often, those who seek to reconcile an old earth with Genesis are actually helping to reduce apostasy, because some Christians have drifted from the faith when they realized the two seem to be in conflict.

 

[His student]

Does God need to use magic to impress you or something? Is that what holds you back………… Magic doesn't do it for me.

I’m not sure what constitutes your idea of “magic”. I suppose anything God does outside of His inherent existence is a form of “magic”.

I believe God grew Adam from stem cells, using modified DNA, I am not sure of which organism he used to modify us from, perhaps one of the now extinct ape like creatures like Neanderthal or the like, but "formed" from something that previously existed, then given a spirit that animals don't have (the breath of life into his nostrils), but those creatures and other primates are the ones we share the most common with genetically.

I don't see why growing Adam from stem cells is necessary to say. It seems to me that it just sounds a little more “scientific” then the way the Bible says it and you can more easily stay away from being called an ignorant fundamentalist by the world.

Why you want to see us as derived from apes or any other existing animal rather than a separate creation is beyond me. I suppose you just feel that you have to bring those supposed “extinct hominids” into the equation –again – to please the world it seems to me..

Obviously we are different than the animals when it comes to our spirit. So why not a separate creation as the scriptures clearly show?

When it says "formed from dust" I have always taken that to mean made of stuff from the earth, rather than like angels, who are created of spirit only I have also always taken that verse to humble us, that we were made from something earthly rather than being purely divine, yet showing that we are favored by God, because we do have some things divine imparted to us (a spirit directly from God, and His likeness). Whether that is literally dirt, or modified from previous life genetically, we're made of mundane, earthly stuff, a humble origin. It is also all organic material, all organic chemistry, whether basic organic elements from the dirt (which would contain bacteria at the very least, still life from previous life), or cells from a previous organism.

No problem from me or any young earth anti evolutionist I know of.

Eve is a little more specific I find, and her creation having these details is why I think God engineered us from cells rather than just made a clay statue and breathed on it.

Just because God took a rib (DNA) from Adam does not equate to Him using apes to create man.

See here where it says

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:

That sounds like Adam was put under anesthesia. The nature of what anesthesia was used is not clear, but we certainly know we can be induced into such a state with chemicals, no magic needed, so it could have been a chemical. It's not like God was against wiring our brain to be able to be induced into certain states and emotions with chemicals.

I don’t see why all the medical mumbo jumbo is necessary. No one I know of has any trouble thinking that He used something other than “magic”.

Again – it seems to me that you just feel that the more language and descriptions you can borrow from the world makes you a little less susceptible to being called one of those “ fundamentalists” who have put their brain on hold to believe the account in Genesis.

Where it says
"and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;"

That sounds like Adam was opened up surgically, a rib was removed, surgically, and then Adam was closed up. Now God didn't use sutures, he would have had the ability to close up the incision with new skin healed up, that's what's described. But the purpose is the same, opened up, remove something, close up. Now why did he take a rib? Why not just scoop up some dirt and breathe the breath of life into it? Why not just speak her into existence? Because I don't think he did either of those things to create any life but the first for one.

Sure – everyone would agree with that. I suppose calling it “surgery” might keep you a little more in the scientific “thinker” category when deal with the world. But why is it important to put on the dog in order to impress the world when you can just say it like God said it and leave it at that.

Really I don't know how the first life was created, we certainly have no means to do it ourselves,

Exactly – you are open to God speaking the first life into existence out of nothing so why not to God creating man separate from the elements of the earth? I don’t get it.

but what I do know is that God made a fantastic modifiable genetic code which would make the process of creating life from other life pretty easy for Him. Anyway, why the rib? Because ribs are a flat bone where Hematopoeisis (production of new blood cells) takes place in adults, and it is a bone that we could remove and it wouldn't cause any long term negative effects. In the marrow of ribs and your pelvis and sternum is active bone marrow that makes all your blood from stem cells in that bone marrow. So God took the rib to use the stem cells from Adam to CLONE Eve, modifying the DNA to give it 2 X chromosomes, and whatever other changes He desired

Again – very scientific and talking about such scientific things rather than just saying it like the Word of God says it may be more acceptable to the world and keep them from making fun of you. But why do you feel that yo need to do that?

The biggest reason why I have this belief is that it gives purpose for us having so much genetically in common with other animals, where as being created straight from dirt there's no point of it, God doesn't do things in vain.

No one says He does do things in vain.

But come on now – every animal has something or two in common with every other living animal. But obviously there are genetic differences and peculiarities as well. That’s why God makes such a point to talk about “everyone after it’s own kind”.

No one has a problem with referring to men as “animals” – we are animals. But we are also different in many ways from all of the other animals.

Why do you think we have to be taken out of apes or something just because we have similarities?

Frankly – and not meant in a flaming way at all – it seems to me even more after reading this post that you are simply trying to fit in better with the world by referring to some of their scientific jargon.

Just because you refer to the fundamentalist way of seeing things as “magic” as opposed to “science” doesn’t make your position more intellectual. IMO it just make it what I have always thought it was - a compromise in order to accommodate and not offend the people of this world any more than need be and thus be found more acceptable to them.

Seriously - all the emphasis on scientific “jargon” seems a bit silly to me.

I don't really care what the world thinks of me.

I can't wait to get a look at the video and see exactly how things were done - but until then I'll stick with teaching exactly what the scriptures say and no more.

P.S.
I'm heading out of town in a few hours for a week or so.

Thank you very much though for your patient answer to my questions.

 

[BobRyan]

Quite possibly that's overstating the point. Often, those who seek to reconcile an old earth with Genesis are actually helping to reduce apostasy, because some Christians have drifted from the faith when they realized the two seem to be in conflict.

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

 

[BobRyan]

Does God need to use magic to impress you or something? Is that what holds you back?

God needs to be honest.

At that point blind faith in evolutionism becomes a problem.

 

[JAL]

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

And yet you conveniently ignored my previous post. Both YEC and ToE are questionable at points, and thus the truth might be a bit of a middle ground (OEC for example), but you conveniently turn a blind eye and deaf ear to those problems remaining content to scorn your opponents.

So God, who is supposed to set the exemplary model of labor, worked 6 24-hour periods (and it wasn't real work in your view) and then - stopped? Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck working for 50 long years, and yet forced to give all the praise to Him? Doesn't that make Him a bit of a jerk?

And where did the light come from - if the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day? How can you presume 24-hour days, with no sun?

But you'll continue to ignore these problems because, of course, you basically see yourself as an infallible exegete, for the most part.

 

[BobRyan]

Quite possibly that's overstating the point. Often, those who seek to reconcile an old earth with Genesis are actually helping to reduce apostasy, because some Christians have drifted from the faith when they realized the two seem to be in conflict.

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

And yet you conveniently ignored my previous post.

I freely admit I have not read your "every post" -- I was just responding to that one.

Both YEC and ToE are questionable at points, and thus the truth might be a bit of a middle ground (OEC for example), but you conveniently turn a blind eye and deaf ear to those problems remaining content to scorn your opponents.

That's more of a subjective emotional case you are making just then. I will settle for facts.

So God, who is supposed to set the exemplary model of labor, worked 6 24-hour periods (and it wasn't real work in your view) and then - stopped?

So then "you" questioning God is "compelling"???
How is that even an argument?

He simply gave the example of a 7 day week. Not really that difficult to see.

Are you really that opposed to take one day off in a week??
Is that even a point of argument?

And where did the light come from - if the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day?

Is this where you convince the reader that God Himself cannot possibly know of any other source of light - other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles from Earth?

Seriously?? that's even an argument against the Word of God?

Please be serious.

But you'll continue to ignore these problems

What problems?

 

[Jamdoc]

I’m not sure what constitutes your idea of “magic”. I suppose anything God does outside of His inherent existence is a form of “magic”.

Magic being creating instantaneously with a wave of the hand or just speaking. No actual work or process involved just manifesting your will just by willing it. To me, work is more impressive than something passive like just thinking about it and its there.

I don't see why growing Adam from stem cells is necessary to say. It seems to me that it just sounds a little more “scientific” then the way the Bible says it and you can more easily stay away from being called an ignorant fundamentalist by the world.

It isn't to appease anything but my own curiosity and need to know how things work. Omissions of information in scripture in something that I am interested in makes me want to know more about it and if scripture doesn't cover it or seems to have an incomplete description, I have to figure it out for myself, by observing nature for evidence of how God did something. Nature has us composed of cells, and of compatible biology with other life on this planet, with the same code that blueprints every form of life, the same genetic code. It makes more sense, TO ME, that we were created similarly using that code, to give that code a PURPOSE in why it is so similar. If we were wholly separate not just spiritually, but physically, there would be no need for our biology to be compatible, no need for our genetics to be compatible, as I have said before, having the genetics be compatible enables the creation of Chimeras (Human/animal hybrids), abominations I'm sure in the eyes of God. If God created us using genetic engineering and biology, growing us from cells and the like, then all of that at least has purpose, there is danger in us misusing it, but at least it's not danger that has no purpose in God's creation. If it's just having us all be genetic cousins of each other throughout all life for no reason, that's putting us in danger for no reason. You ask about what I want, I don't want God to be shortsighted, I don't want Him to do things in vain.

Why you want to see us as derived from apes or any other existing animal rather than a separate creation is beyond me. I suppose you just feel that you have to bring those supposed “extinct hominids” into the equation –again – to please the world it seems to me.

Obviously we are different than the animals when it comes to our spirit. So why not a separate creation as the scriptures clearly show?

It isn't about what I want. It's about what can be observed. Those hominids existed. There's evidence that biologically we are not that different from them, and even culturally, were not that different from them, there's evidence that they made tools and weapons, played music, made art, and buried their dead with flowers. It isn't about impressing anyone or what anyone else thinks. It's about me being unwilling to ignore all the evidence around me and just believe what I'm told, SOME PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION of scripture verbatim.
Proverbs 14:15

No problem from me or any young earth anti evolutionist I know of.
Just because God took a rib (DNA) from Adam does not equate to Him using apes to create man.

It means half of mankind was created using biological means, and you want the other half to be created from a clay sculpture. Why do you want man to be made of clay so bad?

I don’t see why all the medical mumbo jumbo is necessary. No one I know of has any trouble thinking that He used something other than “magic”.

Because the medical mumbo jumbo is how our biology actually works. Why is magic necessary? Why is God actually putting some effort into our creation bad? God using biological means to create us doesn't make us any less His creation than magic, in fact I would argue more. Don't you feel you love something more if you put effort into it? God loves us a LOT. More than what something he just wished would happen and poof there it is would suggest.

Again – it seems to me that you just feel that the more language and descriptions you can borrow from the world makes you a little less susceptible to being called one of those “ fundamentalists” who have put their brain on hold to believe the account in Genesis.

Sure – everyone would agree with that. I suppose calling it “surgery” might keep you a little more in the scientific “thinker” category when deal with the world. But why is it important to put on the dog in order to impress the world when you can just say it like God said it and leave it at that.

It's not about other people. It's about how the world actually works, what evidence is actually in the world. If I cared about what other people thought of me, I'd just be an atheist wouldn't I?
I believe what I believe because I have formed my own opinions taking evidence into account. I am an ugly, lame cripple, the world already thinks pretty low of me.

Exactly – you are open to God speaking the first life into existence out of nothing so why not to God creating man separate from the elements of the earth? I don’t get it.

Either way is "from the elements of the earth" Even the "dust" has bacteria in it. Either way is creating Adam from earthly elements. Just one is a terracotta doll that gets animated the other is life grown from life. Both ways would be created by God. Dunno why you think a dirt doll is somehow more glorious and resist life grown from life so much.

Again – very scientific and talking about such scientific things rather than just saying it like the Word of God says it may be more acceptable to the world and keep them from making fun of you. But why do you feel that yo need to do that?

again not about other people. About what actually makes sense and agrees with evidence of how things actually work paired with scripture, with the philosophy that scripture was never intended to be a "how to" book on anything but how to worship our God and receive the gift of salvation. For me to believe as a young earth creationist does you would have had to have read me the bible before the age of about 10, then put out my eyes, cut off my ears, and burn away the skin on my hands so that I would have no sensation of touch, then just leave me blind, deaf, with no touch with no way to learn about creation than what you told me while I was a child. To be extra sure you should have just killed me if you wanted me to just believe what some pastor has interpreted word for word.

No one says He does do things in vain.

If something does not have a purpose, it's in vain. Us being biologically related to other animals if we were created entirely independently with no common biology between us, would give that relationship no purpose, it would be vain.

But come on now – every animal has something or two in common with every other living animal. But obviously there are genetic differences and peculiarities as well. That’s why God makes such a point to talk about “everyone after it’s own kind”.

No one has a problem with referring to men as “animals” – we are animals. But we are also different in many ways from all of the other animals.

Why do you think we have to be taken out of apes or something just because we have similarities?

Have to? No. It's not a faith, it's an idea, based on the best information I have available. When I have better information to form a new idea from, I will make it. We're not perfect, all we can really do is fumble around in the dark in the spaces between scripture where information is hidden from us and try to understand. That is why I don't condemn people for being YEC's. It's not something I believe, but I understand why they believe it. I only ask that people understand that I believe what I believe not out of a hate of God, or disbelief in God, or low opinion of God, or wanting to impress atheists. I believe it because I see evidence for it and because when I read scripture and see omissions or concealed information, my mind naturally wants to know how it works.
Proverbs 25:2 (this is rapidly becoming one of my favorites)

Frankly – and not meant in a flaming way at all – it seems to me even more after reading this post that you are simply trying to fit in better with the world by referring to some of their scientific jargon.

Just because you refer to the fundamentalist way of seeing things as “magic” as opposed to “science” doesn’t make your position more intellectual. IMO it just make it what I have always thought it was - a compromise in order to accommodate and not offend the people of this world any more than need be and thus be found more acceptable to them.

I've already discussed this multiple times, no need to reiterate

Seriously - all the emphasis on scientific “jargon” seems a bit silly to me.

The jargon goes with the education I've had. That is all. It's like why do you use the terms for anything you're discussing rather than just saying "this or that"? Because you have learned a name for it, so that is what you call it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe evolution is not random, or is just the result of creatures or species or life just simply "adapting", and/or combined with just the survival or the fittest, etc, but is by design and is a program written, directed/manipulated by, and created by God...

DNA seems to suggest that a bit...

An intelligent design, or an intelligent program, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe evolution is not random, or is just the result of creatures or species or life just simply "adapting", and/or combined with just the survival or the fittest, etc, but is by design and is a program written, directed/manipulated by, and created by God...

DNA seems to suggest that a bit...

An intelligent design, or an intelligent program, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

How like with a computer, we write "programs" on chips or now microscopic memory chips, etc, that are mechanical in nature, but what if we could write them on different material or things even smaller, like atoms or quantum particles, or with biology or biological material...?

What if God or the gods already did...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I believe evolution is not random, or is just the result of creatures or species or life just simply "adapting", and/or combined with just the survival or the fittest, etc, but is by design and is a program written, directed/manipulated by, and created by God...

DNA seems to suggest that a bit...

An intelligent design, or an intelligent program, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

How like with a computer, we write "programs" on chips or now microscopic memory chips, etc, that are mechanical in nature, but what if we could write them on different material or things even smaller, like atoms or quantum particles, or with biology or biological material...?

What if God or the gods already did...?

God Bless!

And I wonder if it's not just the evolution of what we call life, but also stars and planets and galaxies, and star and solar systems, etc... the life of them, or them and us all... What if it is all by design... intentional... by an intelligent (very intelligent) designer... who fully knows and knew it all from before ever starting it all, or setting it all in motion... One (to us) very, very, very, large (very large) and extremely complex (very complex) "program", but to God, or a or the God, maybe not so much, maybe not as large or as complex or as difficult to conceive of (or complex/detailed, etc) or as difficult to know, and know it all, from the very start of it, etc, to the very end of it, etc...

What if He uses, or is or was using, matter and energy, etc, and the very smallest parts that make up all the substance of these and all that we know (and some things we maybe do not yet know, or do not know yet) to "write" or "program", all his program on, or onto, etc...?

And it's all intentional and by design...?

That it all works together from the very smallest to the very largest, and us, and everything in-between, by a pre-arranged or pre-programmed "program" that He (God) both created and designed and gave "life" to, etc...?

What if huh...?

Would He interact with it though...? Would He have to, or choose to' "step in or into it" and be in it and be an active part of it every step of the way...? Or does or would "that One" or such a One have "others" for that, etc...?

Anyway, What if huh...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And I wonder if it's not just the evolution of what we call life, but also stars and planets and galaxies, and star and solar systems, etc... the life of them, or them and us all... What if it is all by design... intentional... by an intelligent (very intelligent) designer... who fully knows and knew it all from before ever starting it all, or setting it all in motion... One (to us) very, very, very, large (very large) and extremely complex (very complex) "program", but to God, or a or the God, maybe not so much, maybe not as large or as complex or as difficult to conceive of (or complex/detailed, etc) or as difficult to know, and know it all, from the very start of it, etc, to the very end of it, etc...

What if He uses, or is or was using, matter and energy, etc, and the very smallest parts that make up all the substance of these and all that we know (and some things we maybe do not yet know, or do not know yet) to "write" or "program", all his program on, or onto, etc...?

And it's all intentional and by design...?

That it all works together from the very smallest to the very largest, and us, and everything in-between, by a pre-arranged or pre-programmed "program" that He (God) both created and designed and gave "life" to, etc...?

What if huh...?

Would He interact with it though...? Would He have to, or choose to' "step in or into it" and be in it and be an active part of it every step of the way...? Or does or would "that One" or such a One have "others" for that, etc...?

Anyway, What if huh...?

God Bless!

I guess the big question one has to ask themselves, and the "dividing line" is or will or would be, when you look "out there" and "around here", at life, evolution, biology, physics, etc, and all of all the things both big or large and/or small, and "everything in-between", what do you see...?

Do you see just random chaos with nothing behind any of it at all, or do you see order and design, and maybe an intelligence behind it, or behind all of it, or it all, etc...?

I guess that is the question you have to ask yourself...? I see the latter, but I also know that, regardless, "regardless" some are still going to see the former probably, and probably "no matter what", as well...

Anyway,

God Bless!