This will be interesting...

[seebs]

Long before I came to believe in God, I learned about evolution, geology, astrophysics, and cosmology. The answers I found then were satisfying to me; while not everything is explained, the things unexplained are the sorts of things I'd *expect* not to know yet, given a couple hundred years of looking at space from one tiny corner.

I see no reason to change them now; the beauty and majesty of the way in which things came to be is, in my mind, perfectly consistent with God's way of doing things.

I really end up with no opinion on how much God influenced things, or how often He intervened, in bringing life to be where it is. If the answer is "this is just what happens in a universe like this one", that's fine by me; it hardly dectracts from God's glory to say that He could produce this by setting a few physical constants and letting things progress as they must.

I think the question of creation and evolution is probably not an important one. What's important about Genesis, to me, is not the historical question - which, after all, has no effect whatsoever on my salvation now - but the information it gives us about how we relate to God, and what kind of entity He is.

It is much more important to understand that God sees His creation as "good" than it is to know how many minutes ago He started seeing it.

 

[platzapS]

Amen, bro

 

[wblastyn]

I agree.

I can't stand people who tell me I'm not Christian or twist scripture because I accept evolution and the Big bang.

 

[Hector Medina]

I do agree that it probably really dosen't matter what origin account you believe in.

I am YEC because thats what Jesus taught.

I love creation science!

In Christ,

Hector

 

[wildernesse]

I agree with you, seebs. The mechanisms that God used to create this world are fascinating and have little to no bearing on salvation.

--tibac

 

[Received]

Indeed, seebs. Some of the greatest Christian thinkers alive today are holders of evolutionary theory - Peter Kreeft, Richard Swinburne, and many others.

My brain does do a flip when I read in Genesis 1 that YOM is the word used, but in Exodus 20, in reference back to creation, it is not, which would mean literal six days.

But in view of the whole scheme of things, this is rather minor. I would really like to believe in the gap theory, and even evolutionary theory, but I still can't find the evidence - in a sort of reverse to what you are claiming - to live on, at least not from a biblical point of view. If there are any suggestions, I would be more than willing to accept them.

blessings,

John

 

[Andrew]

It is much more important to understand that God sees His creation as "good" than it is to know how many minutes ago He started seeing it.

Arent you contradicting yourself? If whatever God created was "good" (and He did say that) then why the need to evolve??? and become better? If the fish or monkey was "good", then why a total change into something else. If the monkey was "good" then its language wld have been good, so why the need to evolve into humans with better laguages.

The thoeries and principles of evolution so clearly contradict Biblical principles.

For eg, the whole silly idea of something evolving contradicts God's principle of a seed producing after its own kind. And if God is a God of order, not chaos, how in the world can one even say he used evolution??

It amazes me Christians can buy this false science at all.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[wildernesse]

Fine. Did God create volcanoes? Did God create the elements of environmental change? I say yes.

While the environment changes, only an organism that has the ability to change with the environment can survive. Otherwise it is unsuited for the changes in that environment. A poor creation would be one that was unable to adapt to new circumstances.

Populations do reproduce after their own kind--that kind is dynamic. There is no proto-cat giving birth to a cat--there are small changes that over great periods of time can shape a population so that individuals of that population can be significantly different from their ancestors.

--tibac

 

[seebs]

Today at 03:40 AM Received said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658109#post658109)
My brain does do a flip when I read in Genesis 1 that YOM is the word used, but in Exodus 20, in reference back to creation, it is not, which would mean literal six days.

But in view of the whole scheme of things, this is rather minor. I would really like to believe in the gap theory, and even evolutionary theory, but I still can't find the evidence - in a sort of reverse to what you are claiming - to live on, at least not from a biblical point of view. If there are any suggestions, I would be more than willing to accept them.

I seem to recall that Augustine's massive work on the meaning of Genesis doesn't really even deal with the idea of it being history.

Here's my observation: Jesus spoke in parables, a *lot*. Once, he used the example of the smallest of all seeds - the mustard seed.

Only it's *not*, see. Other plants have smaller seeds - not a whole lot, but definitely a few.

Either Jesus didn't know (a difficult proposition for the faith), or... Jesus spoke using *His* knowledge of the spiritual world, but *our* knowledge of the physical world. Understood this way, everything works.

Well, like Father, like Son. God, too, speaks to us in terms of how we see the world, how we understand it, and so on. Words and phrases and connotations are built on belief, not truth, but they're how we come to understand things. Long after we found out that the eyes of cats do not actually emit light, we can still refer to something as "glowing like the eyes of a cat at night".

Long after we found out that God made the world over billions of years, we can still refer to His resting "on the seventh day", and that has meaning.

Trying to make Genesis *actually* history wrecks it. Accepting that humans in Biblical times often accepted creation myths as literal is hardly surprising, and changes nothing. Jesus spoke to the people in terms of the simple understanding of the world they had, not in terms of science.

I just don't see this as that big a deal. The point of Genesis isn't "our God can make everything in only seven days", or "animals were made after plants". The core message, to me, is "there is something out there which caused the world to be, and it interacts with us on a personal basis".

That message is infinitely more important to Christianity than any detail of how the universe came to be in its present state.

When I was a kid, I had a bunch of books with name's like "Mother West Wind's How Stories", which would contain stories like "How the eagle got his crown". Every one of these stories was full of anthropomorphic animals, embodiments of principles, and the like... And they were good morality plays.

If I'd gotten caught up in trying to determine whether or not there was *actually* a time when eagles didn't have white feathers on their heads, but then the eagle was the bravest of birds and flew further than any other bird, and was rewarded, I would have MISSED THE POINT.

The Bible is best understood as silent on scientific issues. It's either silent, or wrong; I prefer to believe that it's silent.

Note that we had this same fight ~500-600 years ago on whether or not the earth moves. The Bible's endorsement of an unmoving earth is pretty solid - but it's not really making that claim, rather, it's using that primitive understanding as a way to communicate immutability to people.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 04:16 AM Andrew said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658131#post658131)

Arent you contradicting yourself? If whatever God created was "good" (and He did say that) then why the need to evolve??? and become better? If the fish or monkey was "good", then why a total change into something else. If the monkey was "good" then its language wld have been good, so why the need to evolve into humans with better laguages.

The thoeries and principles of evolution so clearly contradict Biblical principles.

For eg, the whole silly idea of something evolving contradicts God's principle of a seed producing after its own kind. And if God is a God of order, not chaos, how in the world can one even say he used evolution??

It amazes me Christians can buy this false science at all.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Why do people grow gardens when they can get produce from a grocery store? Why did God mold Adam out of clay when He could have created him with a mere word? The answer is that there is a pleasure in growing something. The process is an end in itself as well as a means to an end.

 

[seebs]

Today at 03:49 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659143#post659143)

Why do people grow gardens when they can get produce from a grocery store? Why did God mold Adam out of clay when He could have created him with a mere word? The answer is that there is a pleasure in growing something. The process is an end in itself as well as a means to an end.

Indeed, the decision to make the creation take as *long* as it did suggests that a process was involved; if the process was more complicated than that depicted, who are we to complain?

 

[Evening Mist]

This is from an essay called,

“On Genetic Engineering: A Fist in the Eye of God” by Barbara Kingsolver

The entire essay can be found at:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/SmallWonders.cfm

She is recounting the experience of watching a hummingbird build a nest:

“If you had been standing with me at my kitchen sink to witness all this, you would likely have breathed softly, as I did, "My God." The spectacular
perfection of that nest, that tiny tongue, that beak calibrated perfectly to
the length of the tubular red flowers from which she sucks nectar and takes
away pollen to commit the essential act of copulation for the plant that
feeds her - every piece of this thing and all of it, my God. You might be
expressing your reverence for the details of a world created in seven days,
4,004 years ago (according to some biblical calculations), by a divine being
approximately human in shape. Or you might be revering the details of a
world created by a billion years of natural selection acting utterly without
fail on every single life-form, one life at a time. For my money the latter
is the greatest show on earth, and a church service to end all. I have never
understood how anyone could have the slightest trouble blending religious
awe with a full comprehension of the workings of life's creation.”

 

[Evening Mist]

IMO, the process God uses to create is quite awesome.

Understanding natural selection is like having a teeny glimpse of God's technique. I am completely convinced that even the most brilliant person can only barely see this glimpse, and not the whole picture. But I am still in stunned awe of what we *can* see.

 

[wildernesse]

Agreed, Evening Mist. Thank you for the essay!

--tibac

 

[Andrew]

While the environment changes, only an organism that has the ability to change with the environment can survive. Otherwise it is unsuited for the changes in that environment. A poor creation would be one that was unable to adapt to new circumstances.

Wasnt there the biggest ever change in the environment after Noah's Flood? And you mean to tell me Noah and his family had to evolve after that? The animals too? I dont think so. The Bible doesnt say Noah and the animals and then changed to "better suit" the environment. You really need to come up with better arguments.

Populations do reproduce after their own kind--that kind is dynamic. There is no proto-cat giving birth to a cat--there are small changes that over great periods of time can shape a population so that individuals of that population can be significantly different from their ancestors.

*LOL the monkeys are still around. And they still look pretty much like monkeys. Man thousands of years ago still look like man -- look at Chinese history, the first Emperor etc. While it may not be millions of years (an excuse for evolutionists cos they just cant find any examples) there shld at least be some obvious change. like an extra ear or something?

Why do people grow gardens when they can get produce from a grocery store? Why did God mold Adam out of clay when He could have created him with a mere word? The answer is that there is a pleasure in growing something. The process is an end in itself as well as a means to an end.

scripture support please, not man-made analogies.

 

[Loki]

What use would a genetic mutation for another ear be? Homo sapiens didn't descend from "monkeys", rather the animals share a common ancestor somewhere back in the genetic lineage.

Humans have a long lifespan and a long reproductive span. It takes longer for such animals to evolve than those with an organism with a 1 hour reproductive cycle.

Think of each species as a dot, and each amount of mutations sufficient for the devolopment fo another species as a line. It may be very likely our species is a dot, and there are no lines protruding from it. The all organisms of a species do not simultaneously evolve.

But then again, andrew, you'll just dismiss everything I say since I'm not your brand of Christian and I don't believe the bible to be divine revelation.

 

[Evening Mist]

We can see the basic principles at work when breed animals to have certain characteristics. We intentionally breed new kinds of dogs by selecting the traits that we want to perpetuate.

So, why shouldn't it happen on its own, depending on the environment?

The existance of a process does not negate the existance of a Designer. My husband programs computers -- now and then he'll be given a tedious grunt work assignment and he'll write a program to do the work for him. But that doesn't mean he isn't responsible and in control of the process. He still has to design all the perimeters which guide the program, and still gets 100% credit for the work.

 

[notto]

Today at 01:53 AM Andrew said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659557#post659557)

Wasnt there the biggest ever change in the environment after Noah's Flood? And you mean to tell me Noah and his family had to evolve after that? The animals too? I dont think so. The Bible doesnt say Noah and the animals and then changed to "better suit" the environment. You really need to come up with better arguments.

What color was Noah's skin?

 

[wildernesse]

Today at 01:53 AM Andrew said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659557#post659557)

Wasnt there the biggest ever change in the environment after Noah's Flood? And you mean to tell me Noah and his family had to evolve after that? The animals too? I dont think so. The Bible doesnt say Noah and the animals and then changed to "better suit" the environment. You really need to come up with better arguments.

Do you have evidence that a global flood occurred? I'm not aware of that. The common idea that I get from global flood people is that the Earth changed back pretty quickly to the way it was pre-flood. With the addition of predators of course. Although how non-carnivorous animals became carnivorous ones without changing/evolving at all is rather strange.

Our earth has been around for a very long time--and in that time, lots of very prolonged (as on a geologic time scale, not human) environment changes have occurred. Geology is the science that studies Earth history. Life has had to adapt to those changes in order to survive--and those organisms that were prepped for the environmental change did survive. We're not talking mass extinctions for the most part--but continual and gradual response to environmental pressures.

*LOL the monkeys are still around. And they still look pretty much like monkeys. Man thousands of years ago still look like man -- look at Chinese history, the first Emperor etc. While it may not be millions of years (an excuse for evolutionists cos they just cant find any examples) there shld at least be some obvious change. like an extra ear or something?

First of all, we didn't descend from the monkeys today. We share a common ancestor. The same way that I exist as an American, but people that I share a common ancestor with are Irish. We both exist and are descended from a common ancestor, but our populations have been separated for a while, so my culture is very different than theirs --my culture has speciated into American based on the social pressures and factors of my new environment. This is similar to what happens biologically when populations of organisms are separated for a while--one group may become very different biologically from the other based on the environmental pressures of a new location/environment.

Humans are extremely well-adapted for their environment as we exist today--our culture allows us to shape our response to changing environmental pressures from the Arctic to the tropics. I wouldn't think that there would be obvious changes in humans for the past thousand or dozen thousand years.

Also, while we are acquiring new mutations all the time, only the mutations that occur in our gametes/germ line pass on to the next generation--and only then if we make it to successful reproduction. Therefore, changes that get passed on either have no effect on success or, more likely, improve the chance of successful reproduction. I don't know that a 3rd ear does either of those things.


--tibac

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yesterday at 07:53 PM Andrew said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=659557#post659557)

Wasnt there the biggest ever change in the environment after Noah's Flood? And you mean to tell me Noah and his family had to evolve after that? The animals too? I dont think so. The Bible doesnt say Noah and the animals and then changed to "better suit" the environment. You really need to come up with better arguments.

Noah could not evolve. Evolution occurs over generations, not the lifespan of an individual.

*LOL the monkeys are still around. And they still look pretty much like monkeys. Man thousands of years ago still look like man -- look at Chinese history, the first Emperor etc. While it may not be millions of years (an excuse for evolutionists cos they just cant find any examples) there shld at least be some obvious change. like an extra ear or something?

How about traits like skin color, disease resistances, alterations in body shape to cope with heat or cold? These are pretty obvious adaptations.

scripture support please, not man-made analogies.

Only if you can give scriptural support to your claim that creating progressively indicates that the creation is somehow inferior. (Post #7)