Creation Or Evolution?

[Assyrian]

A problem that many have with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation are the dinosaurs. Somehow, many see a problem with Adam trying out a T-Rex as a helper companion before God decided to create woman.

Oh I don't know about that...

Fran sinclair​

I will take your 'Something Else' as 'All of the Above' and go for that one. Genesis is describing creation, it just happens to be describing it in a figurative poetic way that is as true as the descriptions of evolution and geology.​

 

[Taure]

I voted macro-evolution, but I have several problems with the poll.

The whole idea of "macro-evolution" was something that creationists made up so that they could accept the evidence of evolution that we have around us, yet still deny what it means.

There is no such thing as macro-evolution. All it is is "micro-evolution" over longer periods of time.

Secondly, one can believe in evolution, and still believe in creation, as it is in Genesis. The two poll options should have been:

- Literal creation story as told in Genesis.
- Evolution.
- Other.

Anyway, I noticed earlier in the thread someone in the thread raised up a common misconception of creationists:

I don't know why it is so hard for people to believe that God could speak something into existence. If God is all powerful then nothing is hard for Him.
I believe the Bible and take God at HIs Word that He created the universe just as it says.

The Christian believers in evolution do not believe that it would be impossible for God to speak something into existence. He is God, it is perfectly possible for him to do this.

The Christian believer in evolution simply says that, although it would be possible for a God to bring about creation in the manner that Creationists claim, he clearly did not and chose a far superior mechanism, as shown by the mounds of evidence in favour of evolution.

 

[picnic]

I went for something else. I think science has fairly conclusively shown that the earth is old. I don't know enough about macro evolution to make a valid judgement on it.

The early chapters of Genesis are the truth just not the literal truth. When reading these chapters and the rest of the Bible, one question I ask is "What is God trying to tell us here?" I for one don't think God is trying to give us a scientific description of creation, more that he is the creator and the power he has over all aspects of the universe and our special relationship to him.

 

[gluadys]

The only way something can become macro evolved, is for it to have been micro evolved to that point.

Hear! Hear!

Also, the only possible consequence of continuous micro-evolution is macro-evolution.

So, anyone who believes in micro-evolution, also believes in macro-evolution, as you cannot have the first without the second.

To hold otherwise is to subscribe to a misapprehension of what macro-evolution is.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know why it is so hard for people to believe that God could speak something into existence.

What makes you think that Christians who accept evolution have difficulty with this? We do believe God spoke the universe into existence, and that all things were created by his Word as stated in John 1:3

 

[gluadys]

I chose "something else" as I hold that macro-evolution and creation as in Genesis are the same thing.

Of course, I understand Genesis to be a poetic and not a literal description of creation. That does not mean I do not understand it as written. I believe that is the way it is written.

Who ever decreed that a literal interpretation is a default interpretation, to be preferred over any other?

 

[jds1977]

and that all things were created by his Word as stated in John 1:3

Can evolutionists take this verse literally? I would think they'd believe God created "some" things not all...then let them evolve into all things (at least all things for now)
I believe in a literal genesis creation.

 

[jds1977]

I believe that is the way it is written

Linguistic styles of genesis prove otherwise.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Creation as it is written in Genesis. More and more studies are proving that it is possible for the world to be under 7000 years old.

I believe in the Word of God. Genesis is literal.

I am not willing to discuss this as I am very firm on what I believe.

God bless and have a wonderful day!

 

[gluadys]

Linguistic styles of genesis prove otherwise.

I know a bit about linguistics. I have yet to see a "linguistic style" that proves a text must be understood literally.

Be happy to see some examples.

 

[gluadys]

Can evolutionists take this verse literally? I would think they'd believe God created "some" things not all...then let them evolve into all things (at least all things for now)

This is another version of god-of-the-gaps thinking. It assumes that since evolution is a natural process, God is inactive in that process. You are excluding God from natural process. I don't.

I utterly reject the materialist assumption that "natural=godless". I don't know why any Christian would accept this, but I find it very common among creationists.

 

[localz]

Creation as in Genesis.

 

[Melethiel]

I would think they'd believe God created "some" things not all...then let them evolve into all things (at least all things for now)

Did God create you?

 

[Dannager]

Creation as it is written in Genesis. More and more studies are proving that it is possible for the world to be under 7000 years old.

It might be nice if you'd show us these studies that there seem to be more and more of one of these days.

 

[jds1977]

I have yet to see a "linguistic style" that proves a text must be understood literally

If Genesis 1 was written as narrative but was not meant to be taken literally, then Moses is a liar. But, genesis 1 is written as a narrative and not poetry according to its conjunction-verb-subject-object style. Poetry is usually written as subject-verb-object. of course there are rare instances where the order of poetry is c-v-s-o but it is that way either by poetic license or to give emphasis or change direction as far as the subject matter.

This is another version of god-of-the-gaps thinking. It assumes that since evolution is a natural process, God is inactive in that process. You are excluding God from natural process. I don't.

I utterly reject the materialist assumption that "natural=godless". I don't know why any Christian would accept this, but I find it very common among creationists.

good for you Gluadys...I think my main problem w/ TE and that verse is that it's referring to Jesus in the beginning and not throughout billions of years. But of course, that's my interpretation and you have yours.

 

[jds1977]

Did God create you?

What do you think melethiel?

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​

 

[JimfromOhio]

Its amazing that people won't take every word from the Bible. I just wanted to comment on that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's amazing that people insist that they know how to take every word from the Bible. If I don't understand scripture the way you do, I'm not taking every word from the Bible? That truly is an amazing statement.

 

[KerrMetric]

More and more studies are proving that it is possible for the world to be under 7000 years old.

No such study exists - nor could it. The whole idea is ludicrous nonsense put forth by people who haven't a clue about the ramifications of such a thing. The Earth being 7000 years old is as silly as it being 5 days old and that all our memories were planted at that time.

 

[Dannager]

Its amazing that people won't take every word from the Bible. I just wanted to comment on that.

On the contrary, I find it absolutely astounding that there are those out there who commit themselves completely to a totally literal reading of the Bible.