The Soda Shop Message Boards

Hello, Starflower! I think that the time is fine. The topic isn't too old. I've been enjoying your posts.

I think I agreed with a lot of what you said. I would add that changes in genes aren't only through mutations. I believe God designed animals (and even us) with an amazing ability to adapt to changes in environment. Depending on the changes, the animals could gain or lose abilities.

@Starflower Personally I think that when God set the whole earth in motion and got to creating all the animals we know and love today, he only made one basic species of each kind of animal, and those (through the course of thousands of years) developed into different subgroups because of the various living circumstances they were faced with. For example, it's likely that in the garden there was only one type of dog, but since then they've mutated into plenty of other things like wolves, bloodhounds, shi tzus, bulldogs, perhaps even foxes (although I'm not sure if foxes make sense, I don't know the hierarchy of the way the animal kingdom is divided up on hand and haven't bothered to look it up).

@ Starflower
While that was a good post overall, I feel absolutely no challenge from your words to me specifically as your whole point was made by ignoring my own point, far from contradicting it. Sorry, Star, I'm known around here for my bluntness, I'm afraid you'll have to put up with it.
The whole point was: Genesis is poetic.
Is a poem a lie?
No. A good poem is completely true, or as true as anything has right to be. Saying Genises takes poetic license doesn't even imply there's any untruth. It portrays the truth in a beautiful way in order to reveal spiritual truths. And this is a fact: the farther you go in the Bible, the more grounded in specific events it seems and has less of a fairy tale feel. This is because we go from tales told with poetic license to different authors, many of whom actually witnessed the events they write of.
But naturally, if you insist on holding that Genesis is a scientific report, like any of the hundreds of records kept by NASA, we must agree to disagree.

@Pound Foolish
Okay. I'm sorry if I didn't completely understand you before, but now I think I do understand you a little more. I still don't understand what in Genesis leads you to believe that Genesis is poetic, and that it isn't a history of what really happened. But I do still have a question. How much of Genesis do you believe to be poetic, and not an exact history of what happened? Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real historical people, and that what is written in Genesis really happened to them, or is that part of the story just poetic? I'm just asking because I'm curious about what exactly you believe about Genesis.

@ Aaron Wiley
I'm still not exactly sure what to believe about which animals and species and subspecies were created in the beginning and which changed to become the breeds and species and subspecies that we know today, or exactly how animals were created. 1. I don't know enough about science right now to try to figure that out, and 2. I wasn't there when God created the world, and I'm kind of afraid to assume something about what happened at Creation that isn't mentioned in the Bible. I was just saying that I believe horses didn't start out as some other mammal that doesn't even really look that much like a horse, and then turn into a horse over time. I'm sure that horses weren't exactly in every way like they are now, but you would recognize them as an equine.

@ T.S.
I hadn't thought about that before, but now that you said it, I agree with you. Mutations and the ability to adapt are both ways that animals can become somewhat changed, though only slightly.

Also, thank you. I enjoy reading your posts as well.

I'm not going to get too involved with this one right now, because I just don't have the time to post all my thoughts on this issue...

However, I will point out that, while I believe that Micro-Evolution is indeed as much of a scientific fact as Gravity, most Atheists and Evolutionists don't make a distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution.

You start throwing those terms around when you're talking with anti-Creationists, and they'll start ripping you apart.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Pound Foolish wrote:Creationism is interesting, but not always entirely accurate. In any case, evolution doesn't contradict the Bible. Of course, macro-evolution is absurd, and almost certainly untrue, but as I say, it doesn't contradict the Bible. Micro-evolution, on a side note, obviously does exist. (Man, that should get a response. I'm glad Hannah's not back yet, she'd rake me over the coals. )

The idea that man evolved from a "lower life form" does indeed contradict the Bible.

Because, if man is made in the image of God, and man evolved from an "ancester" common to all life, that means all life was made in the image of God...

Anyway, I'll just leave it at that, unless you wish me to continue.

It's a common misunderstanding, yes. As I'm sure you'd agree, however, such reactions are illogical.
@ Starflower
To a very great extent, Genesis probably is a literal history. But much of the language has a poetic feel to it. The main point is, while it could have all happened exactly as written, it may not have. Look for yourself. Read a passage from Genesis, then read the a book with Jesus, and compare. Thus, theories like evolution don't necessarily contradict Christianity. Only when they're elaborated on to exclude God does it do that, and that just happens because people like to exert their own beliefs onto things. I'm NOT an evolution fan, the theory is so full of wholes it's almost laughable and should be put down to a hypothesis.

Pound Foolish: Do you have a reliable source which can prove that Genesis is poetry? I've read papers from Hebrew scholars who maintain that the verb tenses used in the first chapters of the book necessitate that it be taken as historical narrative. Nothing about it suggests that it is not to be taken literally--aside from the fact that the outside, unbelieving world would tell us otherwise. But why should we believe them over God's Word?

Aaron Wiley wrote:meh, It's an interesting argument, but not an extremely strong one. God created light before eh created the sun, who's to say that the light that existed before the sun couldn't give trees the same power to photosynthesize as light from the sun does?

I think God's girl's argument is more conclusive.

Can you receive vitamin D from a flashlight? I don't think so, so the light without the sun probably didn't produce photosynthesis.

God's Girl wrote:I get most of my stuff from Answers in Genesis.

This article explains where they get the age of the earth, however, if you click on footnote #1, it does say that some creationists believe it to be 10,000-12,000 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-earth

AiG has some really interesting stuff. I suggest that you guys take a little bit to look around.

My teachers dad (who is the principle) is really nice
He used to work at AIG

I think it's interesting that in Latin, "universe" means, "single spoken sentence".

In Latin:
Uni = Single
Verse = Spoken sentence
Universe = Single spoken sentence

Whether you agree or not. That's what I believe.

Now there are other meanings to the word, "Universe".
Universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

But the origin of the word makes sense.

i personally believe in creationism

I know another way to prove that the world was created in 6 24-hour days is that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word for day is yom, and the definition of yom is a 24 hour period. NOTHING MORE than 24 hours.

Do you have a source for that claim? Because I've heard that it can also mean a period of light, such as the 12 hour daylight period between sunrise and sunset. A period of 24 hours, a literal calendar day. An indefinite period of time, simply used to indicate time passing. So going on the language alone, it could be a 24 hour day, but it doesn't have to be.

You are correct, Doctor, the word "yom" can mean many things. But the majority of the time, it means a literal, 24-hour day. Furthermore, any other time in Scripture it is found alongside an ordering number (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) (as in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31), it always means a 24-hour day. Also, every time it is found alongside the word "night," (like it is in Genesis 1:5), it always means a 24-hour day. As if that wasn't enough, every other time in the Hebrew Old Testament that "yom" is found alongside the words "evening" and "morning," (as it is in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31), it always means a literal, 24-hour day.

So... the evidence seems to be pretty clear that "yom" means a literal 24-hour day in Genesis 1. You can permissibly argue about whether or not the literal day is to be taken literally (e.g. the framework hypothesis), but you cannot really debate the fact that the connotation is meant to be a literal 24-hour day.

So something I haven't thought about until just now but why does it matter whether the days were literal or metaphorical? If they're metaphorical what changes?

Also would you consider this an issue of dogma, meaning do you have to believe in literal 24 hour days to be a Christian?

Good question. I'm still figuring that out, because there is a teacher I respect who holds to the framework hypothesis viewpoint. I think it's basically because it doesn't take what the Bible says at face value, and it tries to reinterpret it based on what modern science seems to tell us. But, like I said, I'm still looking into that.

No, definitely not. I don't think anyone does. And if they do, I would be tempted to question their salvation, if they think the Gospel could be reduced to whether or not one believes in an old or young earth. I believe the Bible is clear, but obviously there isn't a verse that says, "You must be a young-earth creationist to enter heaven." Some very good friends of my family are old-earthers, and we just sort of ignore the subject.

I believe in old-earth creationism (not theistic-evolution), and because of that, Answers in Genesis thinks I'm okay with murder.

Does that have something to do with the idea that you would have to concede that there was death before the Fall?

I'm not conceding it. There was death before the fall, plain and simple.

Okay. So you're conceding it. That's all I was wondering. I just don't think that fits with the rest of Scripture very well, but I understand why you believe that.