• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Evolution

GrayHairedOne said:
What I mean is that a casual read of the account of creation tends to make it appear that there are contradictions between what is written versus the generally accepted scientific explanation. But a careful read will turn-up a very close correlation between the Genesis account and what scientists believe happened.

Particularly convincing, to me at least, is the order of events in the creation story. I can go into details if you really want me to.
Click to expand...

Yes, what you say is true, even though it may surprise some that people 2000-4000 years ago could get it almost exactly right.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
What I mean is that a casual read of the account of creation tends to make it appear that there are contradictions between what is written versus the generally accepted scientific explanation. But a careful read will turn-up a very close correlation between the Genesis account and what scientists believe happened.

Particularly convincing, to me at least, is the order of events in the creation story. I can go into details if you really want me to.
Click to expand...

All except for the very beginning where it says "And God said let there be ..." but as previously stated my objection to evolution is not because I'm a creationist. And I would agree with you that it somewhat echoes what Malinowsky described as the ascent of man through stone age, bronze age etc. Linguists will also tell you that there is also linguistic evidence of a universal proto-language from which all others have 'descended' ie 'tower of babel'.

For me it is very simple - despite all the assertions that evolution is long slow process which is why we can't observe it happening before our very eyes - this assertion is patently nonsense - if evolution were true, there must be a continuous process of evolution from the beginning of time until now happening - yes? So if that is true then at any given moment a. all animals must be evolving continuously because to say they don't is to contradict the basic tenets of theory b. at any given moment there must be new animals reaching 'the end' of an evolutionary cycle to be observed. Now as a. all life on this planet has been stable in it's present form for several million years and b. no newly evolved animals are happening in our ponds, sewers, backyards evolution has a hard time convincing me it is a valid theory.

I will agree that there is within the genome a range of expression that allows for adapation within certain limits to environmental change. Excessive environmental change and/or excessive change to the genome beyond those limits results in extinction of individuals and/or species. This adaptive ability results in 'sub' species that are touted as proof of evolution but which I regard as the amazing adaptability of the species.

For proof of this just look at the range of expression within the human genome - we come in a variety of hair colours, skin colours, sizes, bone size and density, etc which came about as a response to environment and closed populations and yet any half way decent anatomist will tell you that these 'differences' are less than skin deep. Despite the large variety our wrappers come in, inside we conform to a very narrow range which is all just human.
 
Well as a Christian, I actually do believe in the science of evolution. I think the evidence is indisputable. From the fossil record to the evidence in DNA that has been unearthed. The head of the human genome mapping project was and is a Christian. But wrote a very convincing book about how DNA evidence proves evolution. But what I was really talking about before was creationism versus science. I don't believe they conflict. Although most people seem to polarize to one side or the other, unfortunately.
 
Well first off, the Bible account of creation does not, as many assert, say that the earth was created first. Also, I don't believe that the account of 7 days are ever said or meant to literally be 7 24-hour days. The word for "day" when translated can be translated a variety of ways including as "epoch" and the fact that there were no 24-hour days at the time tells me that the intent was never literal. People get very hung up on that part.

Again, science has proven without a doubt that the earth is ancient but that the universe is far more ancient. I mean, light from galaxies that don't even exist any more is just now reaching us. So before even getting into the order of events, that's something important to understand. If people cling to 7 literal days then I would agree with you that the account in Genesis would be absurd. Not because God "couldn't" do it in 7 days...but because the evidence is that he did not!

Make sense?
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Well first off, the Bible account of creation does not, as many assert, say that the earth was created first. Also, I don't believe that the account of 7 days are ever said or meant to literally be 7 24-hour days. The word for "day" when translated can be translated a variety of ways including as "epoch" and the fact that there were no 24-hour days at the time tells me that the intent was never literal. People get very hung up on that part.

Again, science has proven without a doubt that the earth is ancient but that the universe is far more ancient. I mean, light from galaxies that don't even exist any more is just now reaching us. So before even getting into the order of events, that's something important to understand. If people cling to 7 literal days then I would agree with you that the account in Genesis would be absurd. Not because God "couldn't" do it in 7 days...but because the evidence is that he did not!

Make sense?
Click to expand...

So far. And, speaking with respect to the order of events, only, I put together a comparison some time ago -- when we had blogs -- that I think is relevant to the discussion here. I've posted it here, in the Writer's Room:
Creation - Scientific and Biblical | BookandReader.com
 
Last edited:
Another thing people think that the Genesis account says that the earth was created before the rest of the universe is because it talks about God making "day and night" before making the sun. This confused me for a long time as well. It also seems to say that the sun was created after the earth. But....that's not what it says at all!

First it says the heavens and earth were created. That's both...and in my mind that includes the sun and moon and stars. So then why aren't the sun and moon mentioned until later days in the creation story? Well, it's because they were not visible yet!

Look at the perspective the person who was there at the time. Who was there? Only God. And where was he?

Well it says he was hovering over the surface of the waters. So let's reveiw....

The earth is formless (a big gaseous non-spinning blob with a water core - much like scientists believe it was early on)

And God is on the surface of the water....no light would initially get through the haze to the surface. But as the gasses begin to to disperse and the core solidifies, more light will begin to get through.....let there be light!

And then things slowly begin to spin....separating light from dark.

And then as the haze clears completely, finally, the sun and moon become clearly visible from the surface.

Just like science says.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Just like science says.
Click to expand...

Hardly conclusive, I'm familiar with the Day Age Creationism argument which is in essense exploitation of a language loophole. While the Hebrew word 'Yom' may seemingly allow for this, the number six is not quite as open to interpretation.
 
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment :) 2 Peter 3:8 - Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day.

so are we talking literal earth days or God's concept of 'day'. And a thousand years is made up of many 'days' so that could equate to many epochs in geological time and still be a 'day' as God measures time.

:D

just being mischievous!
 
Meadow337 said:
so are we talking literal earth days or God's concept of 'day'. And a thousand years is made up of many 'days' so that could equate to many epochs in geological time and still be a 'day' as God measures time.

:D

just being mischievous!
Click to expand...

Hmm, well on that note maybe the Jewish Day of Atonement should be the Jewish Non-Specified Period of Atonement...
 
Well there are clearly times when you can use context to determine the original intent of a word. So in the day of atonement, there is enough context to be certain that it meant a literal 24-hour day. As apposed to the Genesis account of creation which has no such context. In fact, the context in my reading EXCLUDES the possibility of it meaning a 24-hour day since there was no such thing at the time. Why would God confine himself to creating something in 24 literal hours when the 24-hour day construct has not even been created yet? It wouldn't make sense.

But the reading of "day" as being some undefined period of time....which fits perfectly well in the original language....actually makes much more sense. We only get hung up on it being literally 24 hour days because of centuries of tradition in which people have interpreted it that way because we don't have an equivalent word in our language.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
But the reading of "day" as being some undefined period of time....which fits perfectly well in the original language....actually makes much more sense. We only get hung up on it being literally 24 hour days because of centuries of tradition in which people have interpreted it that way because we don't have an equivalent word in our language.
Click to expand...

There's an obvious problem though, if the interpretation of 'day' in the Book of Genesis is unspecified then why are there seven of them?
 
Why is that a problem? It could been described in 3 or 10 or 100. I think it's just a way of saying that it was done in logical phases.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is the correct interpretation. All I'm really trying to convey is that it's not irrational to believe in both evolution and creation at the same time. The idea that God created the universe but did it systematically over eons rather than 7 physical 24-hour periods of time.
 
GrayHairedOne said:
Why is that a problem? It could been described in 3 or 10 or 100. I think it's just a way of saying that it was done in logical phases.
Click to expand...

It's a problem for your argument because you state that the interpretation of the word 'day' is an unspecified period of time yet the writer of the Book of Genesis has written there is a specific period of time by giving the 'days' a mathematical value, that is to say there are seven of them. Having exactly seven periods of unspecified time is not a logical argument.
 
I don't think that's true. The writer, in my mind, is saying:

During the first period of time, I did this....

During the second period of time, I did this....

, etc.

And then when all was said and done, I rested.

What is illogical about that?
 
GrayHairedOne said:
I don't think that's true. The writer, in my mind, is saying:

During the first period of time, I did this....

During the second period of time, I did this....

, etc.

And then when all was said and done, I rested.

What is illogical about that?
Click to expand...

I don't especially mind that interpretation of the scripture for that sequence of events. It does, however, lean rather toward the liberal rather than literal interpretation of the written word. But no problem here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top