Well I'll give a quick overview of what I believe, then I'll answer you:
So I respect both religion and science and I think the two shouldn't be against each other since "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein. By the way I think the word 'lame' in that quote means broken or incomplete rather than another use of the word.
So God could have started the Big Bang and guided evolution, but just as big a point is that God sustains the universe in every moment and without God the universe would stop existing.
At one point I was convinced that evolution had no evidence for it and I argued my point untill I realised how little I knew about evolution, how much I lacked in understanding the evidence and realised that I shouldn't reject one theory because I didn't lile it when I had great faith in every other science.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that the creation story must be taken metaphorically because of the evidence for the Big Bang, and Old Earth and evolution, as well as the style of writing in Genesis and overall point of the Bible.
So here a question: If Genesis was writen today, and assuming the Big Bang and Evolution were true, would Genesis include a purely scientific explaination of creation?
That sounds like a great idea, try to keep it short, but still to the point, more discussion than debate, which I find funny because did you know that Paul also "discussed" or "debated" with the common "evolutionists" of their day.. fun trivia..
Interesting... what do you mean by evolutionists here?
By keeping it short I don't mean really short, just so that we don't have huge essays to read each time.
I also request to back up your view with evidence or with scripture.. some points may not have it, but for most part try...
So if I make a point I should provide evidence or scripture for it? Does a reasoned argument count too?
To support this I will start out with the point that both the NT and OT refer back to creation, "the beginning" and in doing so they took it at fact, as history, and I would like to point out, that althought an underlying factor, Jesus did refer back to "the beginning" which is either "creation" or the scientific beginning of "earth or man"..of which "creation" seems the most reasonable explanation..
I hope you don't mind if I use the point I used in the thread just to get that out of the way:
I'll accept this point, but the point I was making is that the method of creation wasn't Jesus' primary concern whenever He mentioned it and so when He does mention creation it could be that He is appealing to common knowledge (which may be wrong) it help express what He is trying to say. This doesn't mean Jesus is lying because the foundational truths of creation are true and because it is pointless to give a full doctrine of creation when it doesn't matter as much as what He is actually trying to say.
Add to this the fact that I think Jesus wasn't omniscient because although He was divine He also had a human brain, and so was infallible on things of primary concern but not things of secondary.
My only other point at this time is that of it is contradictory against Genesis to say that...Genesis represents the earth as created first, then goes on two the sun and moon and stars, and futher on to living animals, sea and air first,then land animals ! all created from the hand of God, complete and with no need to go from a unicelluar being to human.. That is where I stand on the Method of Creation..
Your saying here that evolution goes against the order of creation in Genesis? I agree if it it taken literally.
