Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Creation vs. Evolution

I beg to differ. There is nothing unscriptural about the overall general pattern of the creation account and the theory of evolution. If one looks at Gen 1 and the genereal progression ofthe theory of evolution you will see a remarkably similar pattern. One could make a reasoned valid biblical argument for evolution.

Secondly, keep in mind that whils a literal interpretation is a possiblity, the scriptures do say that a day is a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. In short, time is a meaningless concept/ideal to God as He exists and operates outside of tiem. A billion years would be nothing to Him.

Just something to consider, or not.
TheAJKMan
 
I was making two points. The first is that evolution, that is Darwinist macro-evolution, is just bogus science. It is not a Biblical point at all. Science does not bear it out. Darwinists have failed to prove their hypothesis over a century and a half. Intelligent design is not a Biblical notion either. It is the observation that there are many things in nature which are irreducably complex. If that is the case, evolution cannot explain how this occurred. The Cambrian age also poses considerable difficulties to Darwinists as an explosion of diversity does not conform to their theory.
The second point I make is that I give preference to God's Word over science. One is without error, the other is conjecture, as often as not. Truth comes from God.
 
I agree with a few statements said. Many people in this agrument fail to put two and two together. Since God is timeless, the point of making us on the 6th day just means he made us last. The bible also said he made us out of dust. Scientifically that is how we were created. For in-animate objects become full of life at the moelcualr level. And lastly, since it is said we were made last, couldnt that mean last in the evolutionary process? The word of God was written by a different culture many years ago. What they mean when they say something is very different then what we mean when we say something. But this is all non sense anways. We all sit hear talking about this when we could be praying and getting to know God better. You can never pray to much for we will never truley know God untill we cease to breath and chill with him in heaven. God bless, and the one thing i pray for to God is to be able to pray more and become more and more the image he wants for me. God Bless you all
 
The Gap Theory

Before I write further, here is a disclaimer that I am NOT a Dake advocate. That being stated, I found a book based on his commentaries to be very interesting regarding the creation or re-creation as he puts it. The book is titled Another Time...Another Place...Another Man: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View of Creation.
 
Sorry I'm late!

Read Genesis 4:16-17. The land of Nod existed and Cain found a wife there. But according to creationists this cannot be. Cain was either the third or 4th human being to exist. How is the fact that there were others coincide with the creationist's interpretation of Genesis?

I believe that evolution has an evil purpose and that is to make people doubt the validity of the bible. That doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it. The devil loves to place lies in between truths doesn't he?

I also believe that creationists are defending against this by believing like children as the bible instructs us. However, for those who do not believe in the bible yet, the claims of creationists are quite hard to accept and in fact may be steering alot of scientists away from ever considering Chistianity as an option.

This may be God's plan afterall. God hates pride. Or it could be the evil one's plan to keep more people from the truth.

Personally I think the approach of Christians should not be to enter into a debate with evolutionists but rather let the Gospel be known and display a life of God's love.

Evolution doesn't even come close to discrediting the bible or genesis and we shouldn't have to prove it one way or another.

The claims of creationists that each day of creation is equivalent to one earth day make no sense. God was creating before He created earth so that should tell us all that a day in Genesis is not the same kind of day as one revolution of the earth.

In a nutshell, I think it's a trick and a trap to fall into the creationist vs. evolutionist debate. Stay away from it. You all know that the bible is the truth, we trust it IS God's word. What makes us think we can explain ALL of it? God is far beyond our understanding.
 
Last edited:
I was schooled in the 60's and 70's. Then as it is today we are taught sciences from an evolutionary frame work. From 1953, with the delineation of DNA and the opening up of the molecular/cellular biologics, the irreducible complexity of the machines and systems we have and are continuing to discover is in fact a mathematical (i.e. probability) rejection of the Time+Chance hypothesis. Numbers far higher than the speculated quantity of atoms in the entire cosmos (X10 to the 93rd) are every where in billions upon billions of systems. The hypotheses that these systems can exist by chance/time/physical processes is rejected in the data everywhere. The 27 stepped sequence of cellular respiration or the 29 stepped sequence of the citrus acid cycle in photosynthesis render probabilities in the order of 10 to the 123rd. DNA are stepped sequences of millions upon millions; the numbers in terms of probability arrangement is dwarfing to the 27/29 steps. Secondly, and perhaps more to the point, since 1970 the physics communities, geologists among them, have been confronted with the challenge to falsify the instantaneous creation hypothesis by simply manufacturing a fist sized sample of granite, (goggle Robert Gentry, or polonium radio halos). This task unto this date has not been accomplished; even melted granites cool as rhyolites. Granites evidently were not formed by molten magmas. Nothing more radical than this could I have ever hoped to discover. Why?

The molten ball, earth, billions of years ago cooled into the granites we see today? This is everywhere taught. It is essential to the whole long ages hypothesis; the one cannot exist without the other. But man cannot with all our laws of physics and our technological apparatus manufacture it. It wasn’t formed from a hot and molten state. Evidently it was formed in a water liquid state as Genesis claims along with the rest of the Bible: standing in the water. I was taught a lie, as a fact, for a good quarter century of my life. A bold faced lie with all the respectable authority of Science, is this not Science falsely so called? And were not this enough, there are conclusive physical evidences of polonium decay tracks in Biotitic crystals in those granites. Alpha decays of milliseconds half lives, this absolutely proclaims instantaneous creation. There is no explanation within non-creation Physics how this can be. They are rightly called God’s finger prints of creation. God created physics along with the rocks: thus the radio decay halos. Regular physicists refer to this evidence as a mystery, but that is a limitation of their willful rejection of the creation hypothesis. Decay tracks and radio halos from nuclei that decay completely in less than a second can not form in slowly cooling substances; the tracks would be gone before the prerequisite hard crystal recording them would ever form. Therein lies the conundrum. I trust we are not so blinded…DGB
 
Last edited:
Wow that's hard for me to follow but if it's accurate that's pretty significant. If I'm following you correctly then it sounds like those who share your level of scientific knowledge also know that what you've stated here is factual and they are simply not willing to admit that everything was created at once. I find that pretty hard to believe.

But you are right, we've been fed theories about evolution and the origin of things all our lives and it is hard to see through them to be able to then accept what the bible says as truth. Today these theories are actually being presented as fact to the point where it's beginning to sound alot like religion. This bothers me deeply because I've always believed that science wasn't supposed to "believe" anything until it was proven. Certainly not ever exclude a possibilty all together which is what it sounds like you're saying they're doing deliberately.

On the otherhand, sometimes it sounds like the creationists are doing the same exact thing.... to me at least. Why? Because I don't necessarily trust someone elses interpretation of the bible all the time when it comes to ambiguous things like early Genesis.

I know that The Holy Spirit has guided me while reading the bible as well as when listening to sermons. I've listened to both sides of the debate for years now and still, when I read Genesis, I don't walk away with the sense that the description of creation was intended to be taken as verbose as creationists seem to say it should. No offense but I just don't see how anyone could.

I ask though why is it so important that not one shred of truth be found in the general theories of the origin of the universe or even evolution? Why is it so important that we end up with this big argument over something that neither side can prove? It almost seems like there's a fear that somehow, eventually, science will prove something that will force us to reconsider our belief in the bible and it's up to us to desparately fight to keep that from happening. If the bible is the word of God Himself then it will always stand up against anything. If science can show evidence that things are older than 6000 years then how does that disprove what it says in the bible? It doesn't! It only disproves someone's interpretation of Genesis.
 
There is no scientific conspiracy against six-day creationism. As a theory it fails on its own merits fairly conclusively. There is also no necessary discrepancy between the book of Genesis and science: that is unless you can dictate to me exactly how it should be interpreted, because I have to admit reading through it that I'm at a loss to give a precise, literal explanation.

We shouldn't imagine that our faith is being compromised by accepting certain matters of science. The more that is discovered about biology, particularly at the present as it pertains to the genetic code, the more convincing the evolutionary argument appears, even concerning man's origins, the last frontier.

Francis Collins points out the detriment done to the church when it withstood Galileo, insisting that the Bible promoted a geocentric view of the cosmos. Nowadays of course we are under no such delusion; the few verses that could possibly have been taken as geocentric appear no more than figures of speech; yet how intractable was the church in defending its error.


Does that mean that I am renouncing the possibility of the supernatural, left with a denuded, milquetoast faith devoid of power? Absolutely not! My faith is in the risen Christ, the one true Saviour of humanity, in His Spirit who indwells me, in the hope of the resurrection of my body and the participation in the New Jerusalem in the New Heaven and the New Earth. Does it also mean that we should try to compromise with the likes of Richard Dawkins? Again definitively not; the atheistic perspective on evolution is corrupting in the extreme and should be resisted thoroughly.

The Bible that I know is revealed through the shining of the Spirit, in vast and rich revelation of the unlimited Christ, that persuades me beyond all doubt that this must be the work of a divine author. I have experienced Christ, been brought to repentance and cleansed of my sins and known the filling of the Spirit, and have even served the Lord with all my heart for a time.

Anyhow that's all I have to say. Of course I could be mistaken and evolution could turn out to be a lie, but I will only know that in the day when all things are made clear. At the present I'm just happy to say that I don't know, but I do know beyond a doubt that God is real, that He loves us, that He desires us to be His sons in life, and that He gave us His Son as our wonderful Redeemer.
 
Last edited:
If you google "Robert Gentry", "tiny little mysteries", or "plutonium radio halos" you will be able to locate the publication history and reports that Mr Gentry has published in the different physics and science journals. Also his work is referenced in many ICR and AIG publications. The decay halos in biotite crystals can be viewed on google images.

So much for that. Science theories must be capable of falsification; that is why experiments are preformed. Rejecting the null-hypothesis, the falsification, on statistical methodological grounds tends to support the hypothesis under analysis. A known maxim in science philosophy is that results, data, or findings never prove theories, rather they disprove opposing theories. The real question for any theory then is what results, data, or findings will falsify the elements of the theory. Thus science knowledge is relative and not absolute. The history of scientific revolutions shows this: Ptolemaic geocentric universe gives place to the Capericum heliocentric model, or todays exchanges between the classical (Newtonian) and the quantum mechanical models.

The Bible, however, is in an altogether different ball park. Yes, it is true that human interpretation of the bible sometimes operates just like a scientist with theories and hypothesis testing; but the Bible says for itself that it is not to be privately interpreted. God's meaning is what good hermeneutics seeks to establish and to falsify human twisted meanings read into the bible: exegesis as apposed to ise-egesis (reading out of as apposed to reading into). When we behold an unequivocal bible teaching we are to believe it as reveled truth.

If death entered into the cosmos as the bible proclaims because of God's curse upon Adam's sin, then the formative (organizing) principal of the hypothesis of evolution (natural selection) doesn't come into being until after all of creation is already established. The good creation is the one before death and the curse entered into it. And it is the "very good" creation where all the various "kinds" were already formed by God's special creation. If we simply believe the biblical testimony, then it was completed in 7 light and dark periods registered on the face of this globe which we call night and day days. I must tell you this biblical teaching is what I believe. All the rest of the Bible that I also believe is really very much dependent on it being true.

So much for beliefs. As a scientist man can recognize theories as models of the real world he/she lives in. Regarding creation or evolution, they are 2 very diverging models. Since most of both models are heavily forensic and not experimental the falsifications of both are what we really need to focus on. Many posts in this thread do just that. Ex: the Cambrian explosion is a prediction of creation model and a falsification of an evolution model. It is the organic evolutionary falsifying evidence arising today that is causing so much panic in the evolutionary trenches. Geology is beset with flood evidence that is shaking it. Physics is embarrassed by God's tiny little mysteries.

Let me ask you a question: If relative theories falsify the absolute Bible, which one do you think is in fact falsified? Second, as good scientific theories must be falsifiable, Which model do you think explains the data and observations the best? For myself, I am a young earth creationist and from that point of view I love the studies of Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, and most all other more experimental sciences. ...DGB
 
Last edited:
Evolution is false for many reasons.

For one, the Bible is extremely clear and goes to great lengths to make sure we understand that death is because of sin, which came from Adam.

Adam sinned, and then death entered the world.

Evolution teaches that creatures were morphing and dying (natural selection) repeatedly for billions of years until mankind was finally done "evolving"

This contradicts the Bible which says that death came from sin, which came from Adam. Therefore, there could not possibly be death before Adam.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes the Apostle Paul a liar.

Secondly, Jesus himself declared the "beginning" to be when Adam and Eve were created.

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The beginning is the beginning. There is nothing prior to the beginning.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes Jesus a liar, and the Apostle Matthew who wrote the book of Matthew.

Moses is said to have written the book of Genesis. If you doubt that he was accurate in the creation account, why don't you go ahead and doubt the rest of the books he wrote? Who are we to pick and choose what or what not to believe. There is no such thing as "your own version of Biblical Christianity". You believe none of it, or all of it - there is no gray area.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes Moses a liar.

God Himself, when giving the 10 Commandments, re-declares that He created the universe in 6 literal days.

Exodus 20:11 (God speaking) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is where we get one of the 10 commandments - Honor the sabbath.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes God a liar.

This is my opinion of course, but there really is no possible way to be a profession Christian and not believe in a literal, 6 day creation. To be a Christian is to believe and trust in the full counsel of the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelations.

Finally, there is plenty, and I mean PLENTY of resources out there which scientifically and logically prove the young earth 6-day creation model.

I personally have studied the creation/evolution debate and you will slowly realize how stupid and illogical, not to mention how IMPOSSIBLE (mathematically and scientifically) the "old earth evolution" model is.
 
If you google "Robert Gentry", "tiny little mysteries", or "plutonium radio halos" you will be able to locate the publication history and reports that Mr Gentry has published in the different physics and science journals. Also his work is referenced in many ICR and AIG publications. The decay halos in biotite crystals can be viewed on google images.

So much for that. Science theories must be capable of falsification; that is why experiments are preformed. Rejecting the null-hypothesis, the falsification, on statistical methodological grounds tends to support the hypothesis under analysis. A known maxim in science philosophy is that results, data, or findings never prove theories, rather they disprove opposing theories. The real question for any theory then is what results, data, or findings will falsify the elements of the theory. Thus science knowledge is relative and not absolute. The history of scientific revolutions shows this: Ptolemaic geocentric universe gives place to the Capericum heliocentric model, or todays exchanges between the classical (Newtonian) and the quantum mechanical models.

The Bible, however, is in an altogether different ball park. Yes, it is true that human interpretation of the bible sometimes operates just like a scientist with theories and hypothesis testing; but the Bible says for itself that it is not to be privately interpreted. God's meaning is what good hermeneutics seeks to establish and to falsify human twisted meanings read into the bible: exegesis as apposed to ise-egesis (reading out of as apposed to reading into). When we behold an unequivocal bible teaching we are to believe it as reveled truth.

If death entered into the cosmos as the bible proclaims because of God's curse upon Adam's sin, then the formative (organizing) principal of the hypothesis of evolution (natural selection) doesn't come into being until after all of creation is already established. The good creation is the one before death and the curse entered into it. And it is the "very good" creation where all the various "kinds" were already formed by God's special creation. If we simply believe the biblical testimony, then it was completed in 7 light and dark periods registered on the face of this globe which we call night and day days. I must tell you this biblical teaching is what I believe. All the rest of the Bible that I also believe is really very much dependent on it being true.

So much for beliefs. As a scientist man can recognize theories as models of the real world he/she lives in. Regarding creation or evolution, they are 2 very diverging models. Since most of both models are heavily forensic and not experimental the falsifications of both are what we really need to focus on. Many posts in this thread do just that. Ex: the Cambrian explosion is a prediction of creation model and a falsification of an evolution model. It is the organic evolutionary falsifying evidence arising today that is causing so much panic in the evolutionary trenches. Geology is beset with flood evidence that is shaking it. Physics is embarrassed by God's tiny little mysteries.

Let me ask you a question: If relative theories falsify the absolute Bible, which one do you think is in fact falsified? Second, as good scientific theories must be falsifiable, Which model do you think explains the data and observations the best? For myself, I am a young earth creationist and from that point of view I love the studies of Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, and most all other more experimental sciences. ...DGB

Hmm... now just a second there. If the hypothesis is 'evolution' (a laughably imprecise term that is not, of course, falsifiable because of its lack of definitional boundaries) then the null hypothesis is 'not evolution' of course, we can't gather enough data to ever construct a hypothesis on 'evolution' we have to set a hypothesis like 'evolution through these methods with these results' and the null hypothesis being 'not evolution through these methods and with these results' while 'creation' may be supported by the null hypothesis, it is equally possible that the null hypothesis supports 'evolution through other means with other results' and the null hypothesis (being a logical negative) does not allow deductive statements. If you are a new earth creationist, then how do you deal with , for example, carbon decay on old objects? Also, doesn't the notion of a cambrian period with species not found concurrently with the first humanity require that death exist so that those non-concurrent species don't exist by the time man comes along?
 
Also, doesn't the notion of a cambrian period with species not found concurrently with the first humanity require that death exist so that those non-concurrent species don't exist by the time man comes along?

According to who? Is that a notion of a not found species concurrent with the notion or is it non-concurrent non-sense?

Hmm... now just a second there. If the hypothesis is 'evolution' (a laughably imprecise term that is not, of course, falsifiable because of its lack of definitional boundaries) then the null hypothesis is 'not evolution' of course, we can't gather enough data to ever construct a hypothesis on 'evolution' we have to set a hypothesis like 'evolution through these methods with these results' and the null hypothesis being 'not evolution through these methods and with these results' while 'creation' may be supported by the null hypothesis, it is equally possible that the null hypothesis supports 'evolution through other means with other results' and the null hypothesis (being a logical negative) does not allow deductive statements.

But when dealing with the Lord you need to leave out 'if'. If you do that, then your statement here is.... hypothetical. So, seek ye the Lord while you still can.

Bless you ...><>

Br. Bear
 
My my, but there is some pride and arrogance going around here. I don't think it is wise to tell everyone what makes them a Christian when it is merely your own idea of what a Christian is. There are a great many Christians who understand the science of evolution and praise it for the great miracle it is revealed to be. The evidence for it was placed right in front of us by the Lord for all to see once they knew enough of the ways of his creation. We are there now and to turn your eyes from it because of a limited view of scripture is disappointing.

And seek forgiveness for applying a logic to scripture that causes either Apostle Paul or Moses to be a "liar". Consider:

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes the Apostle Paul a liar.

Secondly, Jesus himself declared the "beginning" to be when Adam and Eve were created.

19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The beginning is the beginning. There is nothing prior to the beginning.

To believe in the "old earth evolution" theory makes Moses a liar.

God Himself, when giving the 10 Commandments, re-declares that He created the universe in 6 literal days.

Exodus 20:11 (God speaking) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is where we get one of the 10 commandments - Honor the sabbath.

Either Adam and Eve were the beginning, in which case Moses lies when he declares that there were 5 days before the beginning, or Paul is the liar. Unless you understand that neither is lying. They are telling a truth in a form that worked for them but is corrupted by your interpretation.

A little over 15 billion years ago our Lord said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Then the symmetries broke, separating time from space, matter from energy. Then some millions of years later the light was separated from the darkness, leaving the great background infra-red radiation. Nearly 10 billion years later the earth formed about the sun and gathered to itself the great oceans. Then life was breathed into the clay of the earth, the RnA crystals began to replicate and evolve, found membranes and catalysts and eventually brought forth DnA. Slowly the fishes and the plants of the sea evolved, not by growing bodies from bacteria, but by the children of bacteria being each a little different to its parent. Then by degrees life moved to the land and the animals and plants were created. Then the birds took to the air after a thousand generations of reptiles became, with each child, a little more bird like. Toward the end of this long and grand miracle the apes evolved and sometime after that there were apes that were much like humans and then humans themselves.

Perhaps atheists see this as a way of understanding without the need for the Lord, but why blame the Lord for their folly and ignore his creation because of it?

Praise Him for such a wonder.
 
Ummmm...

...Ok, yeah, none of this can rattle the fact that JESUS is KING and that I am His subject and ONLY JESUS CAN (AND HAS) Saved me.

Serious question though: Kent Hovind (spelling?) states a reasonable explanation of why this is relevant to the Christian, but I dont remember his teaching. Can someone remind me why this issue is the subject of so much debate and why we should get involved in it?

----- EDIT -----
ANSWER: Because it would appear that those who fight for this thing are being persecuted by someone - Kent Hovind is in prison :shock:.
Almost like the agents of evil are saying: "Preaching these things ain't illegal, yet, so lets slam this man with discredit and with something that will make people see him as a paw paw."

----- EDIT -----

BY THE WAY...

I just saw in wikipedia that Kent Hovind is serving a 10 year prison sentence on what appear to me to be federal and tax related issues. Perhaps that answers my question - I immediately started thinking that someone is attempting to discredit Kent. To make a fool of him. To shut him up.

I wont sugarcoat it - he is one of my favourites and he opened my eyes to a lot of things in the Bible, exposing the Bible to me as (what I now believe to be) an accurate, authoratitive historical account.

If I am misguided in my support for him, so be it, but I pray that Boss keeps him strong and healthy in prison. I owe you that much, Kent - I've never forgotten how you taught me to respect the Bible as the Word of God.

--- END EDIT ---
 
Last edited:
but then again...

"A little over 15 billion years ago our Lord said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Then the symmetries broke, separating time from space, matter from energy. Then some millions of years later the light was separated from the darkness, leaving the great background infra-red radiation. Nearly 10 billion years later the earth formed about the sun and gathered to itself the great oceans. Then life was breathed into the clay of the earth, the RnA crystals began to replicate and evolve, found membranes and catalysts and eventually brought forth DnA. Slowly the fishes and the plants of the sea evolved, not by growing bodies from bacteria, but by the children of bacteria being each a little different to its parent. Then by degrees life moved to the land and the animals and plants were created. Then the birds took to the air after a thousand generations of reptiles became, with each child, a little more bird like. Toward the end of this long and grand miracle the apes evolved and sometime after that there were apes that were much like humans and then humans themselves."

Ya see, here again, is a story being told. I've heard a bunch of "stories" like this one being preached like gospel. Well, hey, it sounds logical to me but what you've written here, as if it has all been proven, isn't a fact. Yet it is stated like a fact. Which is the problem. This is exactly how it's being presented to us today and it shouldn't be.
What if when the Bible uses the phrase "from the beginning" it means from the beginning of when God made Adam and Eve, special, in the garden of Eden, a place on earth. What if Adam and Eve were the first of God's people by which I mean the chosen people by whom the rest of the world would be judged? That would mean that ALL human beings evolving from Apes isn't necessarily true even IF evolution does one day prove itself. Maybe the rest of the world evolved from slime and once it was able to support human life, God created humans and placed them in the garden. We have absolutely no evidence that link the bones of neanderthals to human beings, yet, and even if we did, it still may have little to do with Adam and Eve and all of their descendants. What if there were humans on earth while Adam and Eve were in the garden? Maybe these humans DID evolve from apes. That might explain the reason why there was a city already in existance shortly after they were removed from the garden. I'm not claiming that this is how it should be interpreted but only that it could be interpreted this way.
My point is that we have extremists on both sides of the argument throwing logs on the fire when there are so many unexplained questions.
It still seems to me to be a pitfall, one to be avoided. You can prove nothing so move on, you know God created everything, is in total control and can be trusted. Why make a mockery out of His word trying to explain something you don't know. Let the atheists be the prideful ones and the arrogant fools the Bible talks about, not you.
 
I dont think there's too much to be confused about. The bible lays it out pretty simply lol

Day 1: God created everything
Day 6: God created human beings, Adam and Eve

Macro evolution could not have possibly happened over billions of years because in the Bible mankind appeared only *five days* after the entire universe was created.

I believe the Bible first and foremost.
 

The Genesis creation story was never meant to be taken literally. It was a way to explain monotheism to a polytheistic world. It's the theology in the story that's important not how everything was created. Here are some of the important theological themes in the Genesis story:

In the beginning God created order out of disorder.

God created the land, sea, sun, and moon. This is a creation of God therefore if you have a problem with any of these things (for example a storm at sea or a drought) it's best to talk to God about it.

God did not create separate gods of the land, sea, sun or moon therefore if you have a problem with any of these things (a storm at sea or a drought for example) You will have to take the matter up with God and not with the god of the sea or the god of the sun.

God made humans to rule over the animals and humans hold a higher place then the animals therefore there are no animals that posses divine status (for example cows in India) and one should not worship any animal.

God also created the animals and plants, he did not create the god of this plant or the god of that animal therefore if you have a problem with this plant or that animal you should take the matter up with God (after all it worked for Daniel, but of course we don't get to read about this until much later). It is pointless to take the matter up with the god of this plant or the god of that animal because they don't exist.

Humans are not insignificant as they are in many polytheistic relationships. We are not caught in the middle of cosmic battles between this god and that god. We are very significant to God, in fact we were made to have relationship with God.



Exactly how God created everything is unimportant. Back in the days when the Genesis stories were being told around campfires it was unimportant exactly how everything was created. They had no concept of science. The concept of science is very recent. People didn't think in terms of scientific concepts, they thought in terms of theology.

The evolutionists believe that no God or gods had any part in the creation of everything. The literalists believe that everything was created in a 6 day time frame and that the world is only a few thousand years old. If you interpret Genesis the way it's supposed to be interpreted you should believe that God created everything and that humans were meant to have a special relationship with him, but you are released from having to believe in exactly how God created everything.
 
I try to focus on my relationship with Christ more than anything these days.

Yes, I agree- exactly "how" God created us isn't as important as the fact that he created us to have a relationship with him.

However, I did find an interesting answer to the question "Does the word YOM (Hebrew for DAY) mean literal 24 hour days or ages?"

Here is one answer from Evidence for God:

Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours
by Rich Deem


Introduction

"The day-age (progressive) creation account is non-literal and contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis." I hear or see this complaint quite often, although the statement is incorrect regarding both accusations. I take all of the biblical creation accounts literally. Nothing is symbolic. The Hebrew word yom<SUP>1</SUP> has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time. The day-age interpretation of Genesis does not require the use of symbolism to explain the creation account.
The proper interpretation - from Genesis

A simple way to determine if the days are 12 hours, 24 hours or an indefinite period of time is to examine each of the days and see what the Bible says about the time it took for those days to happen. We will examine each day and see if Genesis indicates which interpretation is correct. In this page, we will consider the text of Genesis only and not rely upon any scientific information, about which we can not be absolutely sure of its accuracy.
12-hour days?

Let's look at the first definition of yom - the 12-hour period (from sunrise to sunset). A very casual glance at the text shows that yom could not be referring to daylight only. On the first day, Genesis 1:5 states that there was both daylight and night.<SUP>2</SUP> We can eliminate the "daylight" definition of yom as being consistent with the Genesis text. The days of Genesis must have been longer than 12 hours.
24-hours days - Day 1

Next, let's examine the Genesis days to see if they fit the 24-hour interpretation. Many things happen n the first day. God created the entire universe, including the earth. God also began the period of daylight and night on the earth. Although science tells us that these events took much more than 24 hours, there is nothing in the biblical text that would clearly indicate that the day could not be 24 hours long.<SUP>3</SUP> The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the first day.
24-hours days - Day 2

On the second day, God separated the waters above the earth from those on the surface of the earth.<SUP>4</SUP> Since there is no timetable listed for this period of time, it could be 24 hours in length. The 24-hour interpretation passes the test for the second day.
24-hours days - Day 3

On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants:
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)
The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,<SUP>5</SUP> Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,<SUP>6</SUP> (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.
24-hours days - Day 6

Day 6 is also a problem for the 24-hour interpretation. During this day, God planted a garden in Eden, and caused the garden to sprout and grow. Then God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name. God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22). Adam's response to Eve's creation was "at last," indicating that he thought the day was very long indeed. More information...
Conclusion

We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. This is why I believe that the day-age Genesis one interpretation is the only biblically sound interpretation for the creation of the world and life on it.
 
Last edited:
Regarding things sprouting and bearing fruit...according to Numbers 17:8, the Lord caused Aaron's staff to sprout, bud, blossom, and produce almonds overnight. So, there is no reason to think that He couldn't cause the entire earth to do the same thing very quickly. We have to ask ourselves if anything is too difficult for the Lord, just as He asked Sarah in Gen. 18:14.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but as some have stated before, when we reject a literal interpretation only because it doesn't fit our experience, we start down a slippery slope. This is one example of that. If you can give God a "free pass" to perform a miracle with Aaron's rod, why not give Him the same "free pass" to do it on a global scale in Gen 1? Jesus regenerated deformed body parts in many people and raised others from the dead...bypassing the "natural" timing of things. That's what makes miracles so miraculous.

Unrelated - Scientists will reject any concept of God because they say He's not directly observable. But scientists are pursuing the detection of the Higgs boson (aka "God particle") that, in theory, gives matter it's mass. How will they detect the Higgs boson? Not by direct observation, but by smashing particles together and observing the decay and debris from the collision. They can't directly observe the Higgs boson, but they are willing to infer its existence based on its effects. Too bad they won't pursue God and accept His existence based on His effects (what He's made).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top