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

[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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/realeve/realeve.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

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/realeve/realeve.html

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

 

[Buck72]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Ark Guy]

Notto, I'm not so sure that actually happened.

Can you point us to an actual historical record that backs up your claims?

 

[Buck72]

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?

I've never heard of this before, could someone please explain? Nowhere I've seen in scripture can it be gathered that the sun is NOT the center of the solar system.

 

[Buck72]

I just answered my own question:

Heliocentrism is sun-centric, while Geocentrism is earth-centric with regard to the balance of the solar system.

I see that the argument stems from the following verse:

Ecc 1:5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.

This does not argue the case for Geocentrism anymore than "what time does the sun come up?" might cause one to discount the earth's orbit. It is a matter of relevant reference. Today in my job I get a weather briefing on "sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset" by a highly-skilled, educated meteorologist who knows better than Solomon the details of atmospheric, solar, and lunar sciences, yet still refer to their "movement" from a geocentristic perspective.

I find it odd to imagine referring to the time of the sunrise as:

"What time of day will the earth's rotational, and orbital position bring about the daybreak event over the horizon at this particular latitude/longitudinal reference point?"

 

[notto]

Notto, I'm not so sure that actually happened.

Can you point us to an actual historical record that backs up your claims?

I already did in a previous response in this thread.

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/prohibition_helioce.html

 

[notto]

Joshua, X 13

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Did the sun and moon stand still?

"Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down." (Isaiah XXXVIII 8).

 

[notto]

I just answered my own question:

Heliocentrism is sun-centric, while Geocentrism is earth-centric with regard to the balance of the solar system.

I see that the argument stems from the following verse:

Ecc 1:5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.

This does not argue the case for Geocentrism anymore than "what time does the sun come up?" might cause one to discount the earth's orbit. It is a matter of relevant reference. Today in my job I get a weather briefing on "sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset" by a highly-skilled, educated meteorologist who knows better than Solomon the details of atmospheric, solar, and lunar sciences, yet still refer to their "movement" from a geocentristic perspective.

I find it odd to imagine referring to the time of the sunrise as:

"What time of day will the earth's rotational, and orbital position bring about the daybreak event over the horizon at this particular latitude/longitudinal reference point?"

I find it odd to refer to a morning and evening without a sun and to refer to placing the sun and moon in a firmament above the earth after the earth was formed, but that what happens in biblical interpretation. What is 'above' the earth? If you interpret something literally, much else doesn't make sense.

Obviously in the past, people didn't find it odd and based their geocentrism on what they observed and supported it with the bible. Closer observation showed that this interpretation was incorrect, much like closer observation has shown that a global flood and a young earth interpretation of the bible does not explain what we see in nature.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Mmm. I assume, however, that most of the contributors to this particular area of the forum do still retain a faith in God, since this is a 'Christians-only' area... so on the flipside, why can you not resolve the sovereignty of God with what you see around you? Why is it that God is unable to simply speak into existence all of creation? At what point did evolution kick in? Before or after the primordial soup?

Conversely, those of you who denounce evolutionISM (I get your point, but I find your dogged repetition of this somewhat churlish and detracts from the other points you make) - I am "white" - of European descent. Yet I am astounded by the diversity within my own species - Africans, Arabs, Orientals... and within each, separate sub-divisions easily recognisable from the other. How did so many races arise? Surely following the Tower of Babel, when Man was spread to all 4 corners of the Earth. Isn't this evolution?

What of the flightless birds on islands stuck in the middle of the Atlantic (sorry, it was around 10 years ago when I studied this at university, so I can't give you the name of the species or the island)? How did they get there, if they can't fly? If they used to be able to fly, isn't that evolution?

Thanks to everyone that's posted so far - don't know if I'm any further forward or several steps back!

 

[Buck72]

I find it odd to refer to a morning and evening without a sun and to refer to placing the sun and moon in a firmament above the earth after the earth was formed, but that what happens in biblical interpretation. What is 'above' the earth? If you interpret something literally, much else doesn't make sense.

Obviously in the past, people didn't find it odd and based their geocentrism on what they observed and supported it with the bible. Closer observation showed that this interpretation was incorrect, much like closer observation has shown that a global flood and a young earth interpretation of the bible does not explain what we see in nature.

I'm not geocentric, nor can I pull from scripture any geocentrism. I can see how the "church" (no specifics here) drew a geocentric conclusion based upon its method of interpretation, but I'd be willing to bet that is the same bunch that somehow hopped on board with indulgences, crusades, and witch burnings - ouch.

I feel your grasp of Genesis has been weakened by either not reading it recently enough, or perhaps just paraphrased too concisely. I'll paste it in this post for clarity:

On Day #2, God creates an expanse (heaven); the KJV translates this as "firmament" I've attached the original Hebrew so we get this straight:

רקיע

râqı̂ya‛

raw-kee'-ah

From H7554; properly an expanse, that is, the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.

Gen 1:6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

Gen 1:7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Gen 1:8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

This is simply the sky, as it separates the "waters from the waters" seems to be that there was an atmospheric canopy of water (I know, sounds freakish, but hold on...) This could have very well been the original pre-diluvian creation, upon which, its collapse was the catalyst of the worldwide flood us Yec's are so adamant about. A canopy of water would have increased atmospheric pressure (a good thing) and filtered out harmful UV radiation (another good thing), among others these would possbily explain the phenomenal ages described in the Bible.

More to follow...

 

[notto]

Where did the water from the water canopy go after the flood? How did it stay in place without evaporating in the first place? (In a vaccuum, any liquid would turn to gas, escpecially water that is warmed by the heat of the sun and the captured heat of the earth).

The water canopy is simply an ad-hoc invention of creationists. If you can get a water canopy out of scripture through 'plain reading' then it should be no problem to understand why geocentric understandings were the norm. There is no indication that all of mankind did not accept the geocentric model until scientific study falsified it.

Genesis 1
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

So, can we assume that by firmament the writers meant an area of space some 93 millions miles away (Sun) or even further (many light years to the nearest star).

What does the original hebrew give for a definition of firmament? How does the use of the word firmament when discussing the sun (some 93 million miles away) correspond to oher uses of the word firmament in the bible?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm not geocentric, nor can I pull from scripture any geocentrism. I can see how the "church" (no specifics here) drew a geocentric conclusion based upon its method of interpretation, but I'd be willing to bet that is the same bunch that somehow hopped on board with indulgences, crusades, and witch burnings - ouch.

Nope. Luther. "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]. ". When Galileo came on the scence, championing the Copernican system, the Pope followed Luther's lead in order not to seem "less Biblical".

I feel your grasp of Genesis has been weakened by either not reading it recently enough.....

[snipped a passage I know perfectly well despite implications to the contrary]

This is simply the sky, as it separates the "waters from the waters" seems to be that there was an atmospheric canopy of water (I know, sounds freakish, but hold on...) This could have very well been the original pre-diluvian creation, upon which, its collapse was the catalyst of the worldwide flood us Yec's are so adamant about. A canopy of water would have increased atmospheric pressure (a good thing)

Now here's an interesting thing. Doesn't matter what phase something's in; the pressure it exerts is simply the weight of it above a given area. This means that the atmospheric pressure on the earth would have been equal to that under the depth of water that there would later be during the flood. Moreover, the high pressure (and high levels of water vapour in the atmosphere) results in a greenhouse effect. Finally, the world would be in darkness because light finds it quite difficult to penetrate far into water. Have you done the maths to demonstate this would actually be beneficial?

and filtered out harmful UV radiation (another good thing), among others these would possbily explain the phenomenal ages described in the Bible.

More to follow...

Do you believe that you would live for 800 years if you were totally shielded from UV?

Bottom line - proponents of the vapour canopy idea haven't actually done any quantitative science on it.