Theologians of all stripes have agreed for thousands of years that beginning of Genesis provides a foundation for our faith. It is not "just a faith account," but the primary purpose is to communicate a message of faith.

As a scientific account that describes the present state of our universe, Genesis is not a very good description. One could easily get the impression that planet Earth is at the center of the solar system. Morning and evening happen for three days without benefit of the sun. The firmament sounds like a big blue dome above the atmosphere, or at least a firm demarcation between man's zone and God's realm. In several places rain seems to come from windows in the sky that are opened to let pour out the water that is held up there. You would think that the words "sphere" or "round" would appear somewhere. We are already interpreting Scripture in the light of science.

Remember that in delivering Genesis by means of fallible humans, God had to thread the account through thousands of years of well-meaning scribes who would be tempted to excise nonsense about the earth orbiting around the sun. Also recall that it took great effort to produce a Bible until Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1454. In Genesis God had some very important things to communicate to us, and there was no good reason to include pages of details about the physical layout of the cosmos that He knew we would figure out soon enough anyway.

I believe that the same is true for the natural history contained in Genesis. Genesis is not wrong, it is not simply a myth, it is not just a compelling story with no real basis in history. Genesis happened! All of it! But to try to match up each verse with a scientific finding is to ignore the Author's main purpose in giving this account to us. Genesis 1-2 must be read through the eyes of faith, and that is its most important message. If we concentrate too much on the scientific details or mire these chapters in controversy, we will miss the faith message there.

What I Think About the Soundness of the Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution sounds pretty good as science, especially the enhancements that were made after Darwin, and are still being made based on continuing research and discoveries. The geological and fossil record shows change over a long period of time. We have a long history of changing life forms. Bugs adapt to poison. Moth populations change color. People get taller. Dogs breed into forms that look much different than the original. In general, the theory sounds pretty reasonable. We can observe evolution happening during our own time in small amounts.

Note that much of the evolutionary action does not involve entirely new structures. New structures are hard to develop. We would all like to see a horse develop wings and fly, but that's unlikely to happen. Plenty of evolutionary mileage can be obtained by modifying and changing the existing structures. For example, most of the mammals have the same basic body plan. Giraffes and humans have the same number of vertebrae in their necks (seven). We have the same bones, but the sizes and shapes are different. The large differences that we see in the animal kingdom can be achieved through small, incremental, useful change.

The term microevolution is used to refer to change at the species level or lower. Macroevolution refers to higher-order changes that cause one species to split into two, or morph into an entirely new species. I do not accept the creationist argument that the small changes we see in microevolution cannot add up to macroevolution under the right conditions. This argument is not even logically reasonable unless a "change barrier" is proposed around every species, and I have heard of no such proposal. Indeed, it is true that microevolution does not prove macroevolution, but it certainly supports it.

However, it is still a evolutionary puzzle how microevolution relates to macroevolution. When do we get stasis, and when do we get change? The old Darwinian idea, that microevolution can be simply be extrapolated to macroevolution over long periods of time, is probably not correct because it is too simple:
microevolution + time = macroevolution (too simple)
More recent research indicates that macroevolution involves additional factors, including the ones present in microevolution (natural selection, mutation). So we can update our equation to express the modern understanding:

microevolution + time + isolation + selection pressure + changing environment = macroevolution

These ideas were discussed at the 1980 Chicago Conference on Macroevolution. For more information, please see the Roger Lewin reprint for the entire text of his Science article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire."

Transitional Fossils

We have transitional fossils, despite the creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils". We have transitional fossils for humans, too, in spite of the claim that "there are no ape-men." (see Time magazine, August 23, 1999; "How Man Evolved", by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, pp. 54-55). The References section of this essay contains links to transitional fossils, including some with pictures.

It is puzzling that transitional fossils are more rare than we would expect. I think that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is on the right track with his theory of evolution through Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory states that major changes occur locally in an isolated population, so that fossils are more rare than would be expected by the slow, stately progress of change predicted by Charles Darwin. Punctuated Equilibrium is not just an excuse for finding no transitional fossils, because many such fossils have been found. Transitional forms are found locally for certain animals, and outside the "evolution zone" the transition looks quite abrupt because of migration of the new species and displacement of the original species.

If you had read the last 10 pages of the thread you would know it.

Here ya go Krisma.....just on time and true to form.

Just about everything said is self contradictory.

To suggest that 'god, christ (as god), and the bible (as word of god) are PROVEN TO BE REAL BY 'FERAL' ... is more than delusional and a gauche blatant lie in its own right, it is deceitful with the specific intent to deceive.

And that is proselytizing in its worst of forms.

To persistently, and stubbornly push one's BELIEFS as though they were REAL, and never make room for the voices that denounce the lie,

... is no longer BELIEVING,

... it being delusional, and thus engaging IN BEING WILLINGLY AND INTENTIONNALLY DECEITFUL, THE HALLMARK OF ALL PROSELYTIZERS.



Debbie's answer:

First off voil it is not just believed by me.....so that statement is just plain false.

Self contradictory to you voil....there is a big difference....If you don't believe the same thing as myself so be it...But "YOU" have no right to call what I believe contradictory or anything else. It is my beliefs and just like with feelings voil I am entitled to mine. When I stated that for whatever you come up with I can take scripture and show my side...That is truth...that is my truth and you have no rights to tell me otherwise.

It is what it is......FOR ME AND THE MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS ON THIS PLANET. I don't tell anyone to believe it voil, and I don't say your going to be struck by lightening if you don't believe as I do...But again to call me delusional with a specific intent to deceive....NOW THAT IS DELUSIONAL.

I don't push my beliefs on anyone....For crying out loud this a religion forum....Would you like me to post Muslim or other beliefs or mine.....get a clue folks. I am never going to say that I am god, you are god, the trees are god, the flowers are god. But I never ever say and please voil just once show me if this is the case.....Believe what I am saying or die....

Now understand one thing.....example Joe Smoe comes into religion threads.....He sees what you abra, and K post....He knows nothing at all about God or anything else. Do you think in a million years I am not going to give him another option. Now here is the key. I don't ever ever ever say joe smoe believe me or die....now do I. I let them read and do with it what they want. And then what goes on behind the scenes is the beautuful part....I don't not once put you down for what you believe....because I don't know what the hell it is you believe....because you spend so much time countering what I say that you never have ever said what it is you believe.

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.

Einstein, who was Jewish, also rejects the notion that Jews were God’s chosen people.

The letter was written in German in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind.

It is to be auctioned in London, England, on Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions, and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000 US.

Einstein writes "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

He also wrote "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.

“As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Einstein 'rather quirky about religion': expert
Many have speculated about the religious or spiritual beliefs of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, whose theory of relativity revolutionized the study of physics.

Some have pointed to Einstein’s quote that God "does not play dice" with the universe (his rejection of the randomness of the universe) as proof of his belief in a higher being.

Others have said that the quote does not advocate a belief in God and have referred to other letters written by Einstein.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly,” he wrote in another letter in 1954. "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

John Brooke, professor emeritus of science and religion at Oxford University, told the Associated Press that the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" — although he was not an atheist, either.

"Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said

Brooke said Einstein believed "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."

Bloomsbury spokesman Richard Caton said the auction house was "100 per cent certain" of the letter's authenticity.

It is being offered at auction for the first time by a private vendor.

It makes perfect sense if you don't look at it with blinders on Voileazur. You must read all of the scriptures involved while trying to understand it in proper context. As feral stated above God is the light. I could break it down for you in Biblical terms but you wouldn't get it so I won't waste my time.

Maybe I should use a story to demonstrate:

There was a college professor who challenged his students with what he believed to be a Biblical contradiction. This professor approached his students with the claim that if God created everything as the Bible states then certainly God created evil.

Well one of his students spoke up and broke it down logically for the professor.

The student said to the Professor, "do you believe that cold exists?"

The professor replied "yes, I get cold when I go outside without the proper clothing."

The student countered, "cold is a term that we have brought about to explain the absence of heat. Cold does not exist other than in the literary sense to describe absence of heat."

Example given:

Main Entry: absolute zero
Function: noun
Date: 1808
: a theoretical temperature characterized by complete absence of heat and motion and equivalent to exactly −273.15°C or −459.67°F


Then the student said, Professor do you believe in darkness?

The Professor answered, "yes, the universe is dark mostly and it gets dark when you go into a closet and turn off the light."

The student replied, "Darkness is a term that we have brought about to describe absence of light. Darkness only exists in a literary context as the word cold."

Example given:

Main Entry: 1dark
Pronunciation: \ˈdärk\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English derk, from Old English deorc; akin to Old High German tarchannen to hide
Date: before 12th century
1 a: devoid or partially devoid of light : not receiving, reflecting, transmitting, or radiating light <a dark room> b: transmitting only a portion of light <dark glasses>


Then the student asked, "Professor do you believe in evil?"

The Professor replied, "Ofcourse, I just stated that God must have created evil if as the Bible states, He created everything."

The Student replied, "God did not create evil. As in my first two examples, evil is a word to explain the total absence of God."

I may have the exact words of the quotes slightly off because I am going from memory here but this is a true story.

The student was Albert Einstein. How many of the scientists that you or other people quote to squash the existence of God hold more credibility or are more renown than him in the world of science?

As evil is the absence of God, so is darkness. God does not need a sun to create light. Certain forms of plankton can emit light without a sun, I don't see why it is so hard to understand that God is capable of creating light without a sun.

I think you might want to ask to be beemed up again.

Thank you Feral, yes I am having a good day, I hope you are as well.

Thought I would share a scripture with you.

Proverbs 23:9 "Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."

TBRich

You have many original thoughts on the topic at hand, which is good, it shows that you are of an open mind and choose to think for yourself. I applaud you for this.

I respect your opinions, and agree with several of them(feral has already countered the ones I don't agree with) but I would like to state that with an open mind one can make evolution fit while taking Genesis literally.

I must first state that, as I am sure you know, some people have literal views of the Bible and its accounts while others have figurative views.
I don't claim to know which is the correct view but I personally am in the center between taking the Bible figuratively and literally. I believe that understanding individual scriptures mandates that a person chose wisely as to which view to employ.

I find it interesting that several others involved in this thread have stated that the Bible's account of man being formed from dust is irrational. No matter which scientific theory one believes to be true, all of these theories state that all lifeforms have evolved from minerals. Whether God's hand created this lifeform or a countless number years mixed with natural selection is responsible, both accounts protray life beginning from dust. Now for arguments sake:

The most beautiful and impressive statue that exists started as a rock. The statue shares the same base ingredient as the rock but obviously appears to be something all together different.

As in Genesis it states that God created Woman from Man, he could have created Man from another living being already designed(chimp), the Bible, in my opinion, as yours, should be looked at figuratively here when it states man was formed from dust. A piece of plywood is formed from a tree and one can build a shelter with plywood; would it be incorrect to state that the shelter in this example were formed from a tree, instead of plywood? No, the explanation basically left out the obvious as it should be ascertained by the reader.

Genesis states that the animals were created first, then man. So even logically(not spiritually) one could theorize why we share such a high percentage of DNA with Chimps and make evolution compatible with the Bible.

Time periods in the Bible are relatively difficult to define with any certainty in some scriptures. It says in the Bible that a 1,000 days on earth is like 1 day in Heaven. Is this to be taken literally or figuratively? I believe both. This means to me, that time is not as relative in Heaven as it is here on earth(literally) but I do not believe that it was meant to be taken so literally that we should use an exact 1,000 to 1 ratio in understanding this.

My point here is that the first few chapters of Genesis could be speaking in terms of Heavenly time versus earthly time. That would mean that the 7 days of creation described in Genesis could literally be millions or even trillions of years of earth time. What is a few trillion years to God? He is the Alpha and the Omega.

I would not expect a skeptical mind(not meaning you here) to accept much less try to understand my view on this(the Bible states that God will trap the wise in their own cleverness), I am merely stating my opinion in case a Babe in Christ stumbles upon this thread and is confused over the issue. Any seed of doubt in the minds of one of these Babes could be destructive. The Bible calls me to attempt to save these from being lost. In Pauls letter to Jude he says:

Jude 1:17-19 "But remember, my friends, what you were told in the past by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, 'When the last days come, people will appear who will make fun of you, people who follow their own godless desires. These are the people who cause divisions, who are controlled by their natural desires, who do not have the Spirit."

Jude 1:22-23 "Show mercy toward those who have doubts; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and to others show mercy mixed with fear, but hate their very clothes, stained by their sinful lusts."

Someone will most certainly twist the last scripture and claim that it preaches a message of hate. It is hatred for sin, plain and simple.

TBRich it is obvious that you have a strong measure of Faith and are unwavering in your beliefs, God bless you.

Oh, and you are not correct in believing there was no light until the forth day, as feral has stated above.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."