Evolution in any form in the Bible?

Great explaination, of putting it!

 

I sure hope you're not lumping me into that category of "some people". I don't think Genesis is myth, but rather Cliff's Notes. As I said before, there's more than one small detail about God's creation that's left out.

Or don't you believe in microbiotic life? Do you think dinosaurs are make believe? Where did I misplace that chapter on neuro-surgery?

As far as how long it took Adam and Eve to procreate, why did God issue the command before the fall, and they didn't get to it until after they were thrown out?

Honestly I don't think your little "gotcha" has proven anything. Maybe their decision to finally follow His commandment was in an attempt to get back in His good graces after they got booted.

Try, just try, to answer my question: How many days did Adam and Eve spend in the Garden of Eden before they were thrown out? If you cannot answer that based on the information given, then we must conclude that not every detail of creation is given in the book of Genesis.

The most important detail is: "God Created," which I believe.

 

The amount of discipleship and evangelism among most church members tells us that.

 

No, only the revolution of the earth around fixed point of light.

 

I wasn't saying that it is truth. I was saying that there is stronger data for a young earth than there is for an old one. And was using this aspect of science held by many in the scientific community to be true as one point in showing that using light to determine the age of the universe or even the Earth is absurd.

However, which science should we hold to. Easy.
That which is proven true and not idealogically a truth.
Thus it should correspond without problem to the Word of God. Though God's Word is not a science book, it does contain things which relate specifically to different aspects of science (different scientific disciplines).

 

That isn't in there because Genesis wasn't written to be a diary of the Garden of Eden but a record of certain important events and things. Those things which God deemed important He had written down.

 

Neither is evolution for that matter. But neither is relevant to what I said.

 

Did you not write, "For me science must be interpreted by the word of God."?

You cannot interpret science with a historical document. You cannot interpret true experimental data with scripture. They are not even related in any way. The power of the atomic bomb cannot be interpreted through the lens of scripture.

Think about the definition of science.

 

Emphasis mine

Well, it's certainly not in the scriptures, but my guess is that they were in the garden for something around 25 days OR less - maybe only a day or two.

WHY??? Glad you asked!!

Man, being what he is, and woman being what she is, and this being before the pill, well, draw your own conclusions!

And as for it being possibly millions of years -- yeah, right!! Get real!!!!

Now of course this is assuming that when God created them both that they were physically the same as today's humans sans the deterioration caused by sin.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcott
They may still have been "fruitful and multiply." They may have eaten an apple, a pear, a peach, a promegranite, a grapefruit, and a banana, and then started ciphering: "2 times 1 is 2; 2 times 2 is 4; 2 times 3 is sick-- uh, six......"

Oh, you must not be a literalist.

 

But the creation of the world can. Choosing an unrelated topic does not prove your point.

 

That's about as valid an explanation as, "because I said so."

Listen, man, you DON'T KNOW. Face it. YOU DON'T KNOW. Why is that so hard to admit?

MY theory is as valid as yours. Why? Because its not spelled out in the Book.

And based on what science says, I think mine is more reasonable.

 

There is no way to deny that evolution is an attack on God's word.

It attacks one of the most important things God tells us: that man is created in the image of God. For example, from an article on Darwin in today's Wash Post (emphasis added):

This is telling us that according to evolution, 1) man came from chimpanzees and 2) man did not initially have the capacity for language.

Both of these "theories" assault God's word that man was made in the image of God.

Furthermore, evolution has no purpose according to the evolutionists themselves:

To believe this is an assault on the entirety of the Bible and on the nature of God.

Article is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104244.html

 

Glad you put more faith in science than the Bible. You've already been given a valid reason why it couldn't have been millions of years from the creaton of Adam and Eve until the fall. You are ignoring it. So, why don't you answer? Do you believe that Adam and Eve failed to follow God's instructions for millions of years?

 

How does any of this support evolution? Evolution says man came from chimps, so there could not have been a literal Adam and Eve created by God apart from the animals. Evolutionists admit evolution is blind and has no purpose; so how could evolution and belief in the biblical God be compatible? See my previous post.

 

There is no symbolic meaning in Gen. 1. Why would God have Moses tell the Hebrews that He created in 6 days and not mean 6 days? Surely the Hebrews believed it was 6 days.

Furthermore, God repeats this - that He created the world in 6 days - in Exodus when He is giving the 10 commandments.

 

I do not think authentic science contradicts God's word since God made everything that science explores and seeks to understand.

Valid science is based on God's truth, not the other way around.

 

For starters, I don't believe in evolution as generally described by science, because they take God out of the equation. But let's try to settle one thing at a time: If old earth is denied by Christians because they think (are worried) that the possibility that earth is as old as scientists say it is, necessarily proves evolution true, and that evolution necessarily disproves the existence of God, then they're wrong on both counts.

The earth could be just as old as science says without evolution being true, and certain principles of evolution can be true without disproving God.

It occurs to me that forcing a young earth, non-science perspective just shows an irrational fear that our faith is not as strong as we'd like to believe.

 

If Adam lived to be 900-plus years AFTER the fall, then YES, I think the perspective of "immediately" is probably different than our own.

Again, why is it SO important that the earth be only (depending on who you ask here) 8000 to 15,000 years old? What does that do secure your faith? I believe in God no matter WHAT science tells us about our world... do you?