How do you balance evolution and creation?

[Musky Hunter]

Here are 2 sets of Youtube videos that may help you with this:

"Everything is spiritual part 1-5" by Rob bell

"Case for a creator" by Lee strobel

A Case For a Creator is an awesome book!

Personally, once a person gets a better understanding of the Hebrew word "yom" which is translated to mean "day" in several of the older English translations but could just as easily translated to and probably better translated to mean "time period" which it is translated to mean in other parts of the O.T. then the rest of the creation story falls into place rather nicely and the issue of evolution just one of the possible ways in which God may have done Gods creation.

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created" and the rest is detail.

 

[Musky Hunter]

put yourself in God's shoes...

and assume evolution is how the world got here...

Now... how exactly do you explain that to people who lived 4000 years ago?? An advance in science = the world travelled on teh back of a turtle at that point in history...

I mean, really, did you want a dissertation on DNA and natural selection? Give me a break... There is no way God could have explained evolution to them...

Now, is that what Genesis is (God's explanation since the actual one wouldn't make sense to those people)?? I don't know... but it does kind of fit...

The thing I have always wanted to know... is what exactly was the light during the first 3 days... How is there light without the sun? See, the people of that day didn't know that light comes from the sun, but we do now... Also, I always wondered why it seems to say the moon produces light when it doesn't do any such thing...

From my perspective, I agree very much with the darkened area. God was telling the creation story as accurately as he could to people who really do not understand.

Genesis 1:3 clearly states "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." and yet light does not appear for the 1st 3 days on Earth.

I believe that while true and accurate to the degree that it could be while still being understandable to a band of nomadic tribesman, Genesis was told from the subjective viewpoint of humans so that humans could understand as best as possible then and today. If one now looks at how science believes the Heavens and the Earth was made, one would understand that the Sun and the light from the sun were created well before there was life on Earth but was not readily visible or distinguishable from Earth until the volcanic activity, ash, dust, fog, cloud cover diminished to the point where the light could shine through on "the fourth day".

 

[SiderealExalt]

Well the theory of evolution is a theory. It is not a law of science simply because it has not been tested.

Please get an accurate idea of what a scientific theory means as a term.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I believe that while true and accurate to the degree that it could be while still being understandable to a band of nomadic tribesman, Genesis was told from the subjective viewpoint of humans so that humans could understand as best as possible then and today. If one now looks at how science believes the Heavens and the Earth was made, one would understand that the Sun and the light from the sun were created well before there was life on Earth but was not readily visible or distinguishable from Earth until the volcanic activity, ash, dust, fog, cloud cover diminished to the point where the light could shine through on "the fourth day".

I can then only assume that the Creation stories of the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and all other world cultures and religions is equally those Gods explaining it in terms ancient man could understand.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I can then only assume that the Creation stories of the Sumerians, the Egyptians, and all other world cultures and religions is equally those Gods explaining it in terms ancient man could understand.

You do realize only one of those stories can be correct, just like only one set of dieties can be the real ones... right?

 

[SiderealExalt]

You do realize only one of those stories can be correct, just like only one set of dieties can be the real ones... right?

Ever heard the saying, everything is possible, not not everything is probable. You can put me under the none of the above category. And the point wasn't about what is right. But was when you engage in the sad sort of goal post shifting that creationism has gone through as scientific discovery slowly put surely squeezes religious assumptions into smaller and smaller, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Ever heard the saying, everything is possible, not not everything is probable. You can put me under the none of the above category. And the point wasn't about what is right. But was when you engage in the sad sort of goal post shifting that creationism has gone through as scientific discovery slowly put surely squeezes religious assumptions into smaller and smaller, it's pretty obvious what you're doing.

you do realize that you are refuting the Creation story to people who are also refuting it as exact fact... right?

 

[Trashionista]

You do realize only one of those stories can be correct, just like only one set of dieties can be the real ones... right?

I'd like to firmly disagree on that one.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'd like to firmly disagree on that one.

actually I kind of would, too... There are some sets of dieties that could exist along with certain other sets...

HOWEVER, on the whole, its a safer assumption to assume that two religions cannot both be true than it is to assume that both can be true... most religions don't leave room for other religions...

 

[Trashionista]

actually I kind of would, too... There are some sets of dieties that could exist along with certain other sets...

HOWEVER, on the whole, its a safer assumption to assume that two religions cannot both be true than it is to assume that both can be true... most religions don't leave room for other religions...

Which I'd say is a flaw, but that's a whole other story.
Carry on, though. Overall I agree.

 

[*Starlight*]

Gravity is a law, it always applies. Once a theory has been proven it becomes a law.

That's not true. Both gravity and biological evolution are observed facts. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are explanations how exactly these things happen.

 

[SiderealExalt]

That's not true. Both gravity and biological evolution are observed facts. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are explanations how exactly these things happen.

Thank you for the injection of intelligence into this thread.

 

[speakout]

That's not true. Both gravity and biological evolution are observed facts. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are explanations how exactly these things happen.

The scientic method cannot be applied to chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, macro evolution.

The theory of Evolution cannot explain origins, it also violates the law of biogenesis- living things cannot come out of non livong things.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The scientic method cannot be applied to chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, macro evolution.

We can only assume you mean by chemical evolution so weird mis use of the word in reference to something other than biochemistry. Different science.

I assume by cosmic evolution you mean the formation of galaxies. Again different science.

And actually evolutionary theory encompasses micro and macro evolution.

Seriously, I knew this stuff by 7th grade.

The theory of Evolution cannot explain origins, it also violates the law of biogenesis- living things cannot come out of non livong things.

Evolutionary theory isn't abiogensis, difference science.

Wow this was easy. Try harder.

 

[HannahBanana]

The scientic method cannot be applied to chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, macro evolution.

The theory of Evolution cannot explain origins, it also violates the law of biogenesis- living things cannot come out of non livong things.

Serious question here:

Have you even studied evolution? If you haven't, then why are you claiming to know what it's all about?

 

[Saskwatch]

-did you know that Darwin became a christian and renounced his whole theory before he died.

This is actually a myth. It seems to abound within our Christian community.