Would this support Evolution from a Christian (biblical) stand point?

Question

God would have made the heavens which He didnt speak to man how it was made. For earth He spoke "Let there be light" THEN there was light. Could it be that he spoke what was to happen in one week but actually did it in however old the earth is? day2 seperated earth from sea, third, made plants fourth, seasons, stars, and moon, sea animals then birds and finally animals. Then he meticulously made humans special. Isnt that almost the order in which scientist say the world was made? And they still have missing links to prove that humans come from Apes. Just because he spoke the word doesnt mean it will happen instantly. God says many think but they dont happen suddenly all the time.

would it be right aside from the stars befroe the plants.

He would have only spoke about the plants before the sun was made but then the sun would have come first then the plants.

Also before Adam sinned, he was eternal and wasnt dying so he could have been there because you would count the time he started to die until the time he did die to tell his age.

Answer 1

I think you really have to understand that God has no concept of time. What is considered instant to us may take a millineum in his eyes. Evolution could fit in the picture if biblical scholars and teachers could grasp that God is far greater and more intelligent than they can even imagine. Remember also that when the bible was written, God had to speak to man in a fashion that the man of the time could understand. Back then man may not have understood what great expanses of time it took to create the planet etc. so God had to say I did it, get over it and man was in the position to either accept it or not. The amount of time it took is truly irrelevant.

Answer 2

Well, the order of creation actually doesn't match the order of evolution very well -- particulalry if you include the creation of the stars and planets. However, plenty of religions (such as Catholicism) have no problem with evolution. You just need to remember that the Bible was written for people with less scientific knowledge than we have today.

Answer 3

1) This would make God a liar. 2) You mean plants just existed millions of years before the stars and moon and even seasons? That's ridiculous. They would have all died out.

Answer 4

Yes, I think you are right. I think God days is different than man days. I subscribe to the idea that scientific explanation of our beginnings is just stumbling upon the way God did it. It doesn't make him any less the Creator, it just shows his methods, yeah?

Answer 5

no, our own sun is a second or third generation star in the universe. It couldn't have happened in that naive order as mentioned in the book of genesis.

Answer 6

To the unique author and those "Christians" who have faith in evolution: Is your mom a monkey? What approximately your grandmother? or perhaps your great grandmother? in case you're saying evolution is authentic, which won't be ready to be shown the two, somebody on your loved ones grew to become right into a monkey, or poultry, or primal ooze, or despite you have faith from which you developed. who grew to become into it? And via the way, your feeble examples of fruit flies and plant life and fish...jointly as there truthfully is evidence of a sparkling varieties of theses animals and bugs and plant life they are nevertheless in a similar kinfolk. the recent flies are nevertheless flies, new fish nevertheless fish and so on... evolution dictates that those flies might evolve right into a thoroughly diverse insect; the fish might supply thank you to a minimum of something thoroughly diverse. after all, your great-great grandmother grew to become right into a monkey real?(thoroughly diverse animal than people). the element is you may not tutor evolution is authentic no greater advantageous than i will tutor clever layout. they are the two a rely of religion ( despite in case you have faith that or not). so which you nevertheless have faith in that rubbish of evolution and that i visit proceed to have faith in the actual fact.

Answer 7

According to my belief, you are right on the money. You probably will have a hard time convincing some of those Bible literalists of your point.
If you want to ask me any religious questions directly, you can do so at [e-mail].

Answer 8

umm, when did they find the missing link? I believe the account in the Bible. I think God has a sense of day/time since He was the one who implemented it.

Answer 9

You are trying to make sense out of nonsense. In biblical times, people thought that the earth and heaven were all that there was... and that the earth was essentially a 'terrarium' (you might want to look that up). They thought that the sky was a solid object, called the 'firmament', and that the sun, moon, and stars were affixed to it. So, essentially, heaven is 'on the other side of the sky'.

The story of Genesis is comprised of the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of wandering Bronze Age goat herders, lifted from the oral traditions of other cultures, and crafted into a tale that incorporated some of their own folk tales and pseudo-history. This collection of ignorance provides the basis for the Abrahamic cults of desert monotheism... Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The cosmological aspects of Genesis are perfectly understandable, if you contemplate it in the proper context. At the time the bible stories were concocted, the perception was that the earth was the object and the center of creation. Why? Because they had no reason to think otherwise. Today, as we advance science, we stand upon the shoulders of all the scientists that came before. Back then there were no shoulders to stand upon... so they did the best they could with what they had... their senses.

* They had no concept of 'outer space', and so they conceived that in the beginning all there was were dark waters.

* They had no concept of 'nothingness'. Remember, the concept of 'zero' wasn't invented (discovered?) until thousands of years later. With that in mind, the term 'void', as it is employed in Genesis, can not refer to 'nothingness'... it can only be applied in its alternative definition, which is 'empty'. So, the waters were dark, formless and empty (devoid of content).

* They thought that all of creation consisted of the earth and an unseen 'heaven', and they thought that the sky was a 'thing'... a substantive 'firmament' that was created by god to separate the waters and differentiate earth from heaven, when both were created.

# They had no idea that Earth was a planet, orbiting the sun.

# They had no idea that there is no firmament... that the sky is not a 'thing'.

(If you don't believe that they thought the sky was an object, consider the Tower of Babel, that they were building to reach heaven. Apparently, God ALSO thought that the sky was an object, since it concerned him so much that he confounded their speech, so as to disrupt their project and keep them from reaching his domain. God must be pretty much of a dumbass, if he doesn't even know the actual configuration of the universe that he created. So much for the 'inerrant' bible.)

* They thought that the sun was a light that god had placed upon the 'firmament' to differentiate night from day.

# They had no idea that the sun is a star... the center of our solar system.

# They had no concept of 'stars' in the same sense that we understand them today.

* They had no idea that night and day were a consequence of the earth's rotation.

* They thought that the moon was a light that god had caused to travel across the firmament to enable man to differentiate the seasons.

# They had no concept of the moon as a satellite.

* They thought that the stars were tiny lights that god had placed upon the firmament to provide for omens. (Some thought that the stars were 'holes' in the firmament that allowed the 'light of heaven' to shine through.)

# They had no idea that the stars were suns, just like our own sun.

# They thought the eyeball-visible planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) were 'wandering stars'.

# They had no idea that the planets were actually sun-orbiting bodies, just like earth.

* They had no idea that the earth, itself, is a planet.

# They had no clue as to the actual nature of the earth, our solar system, the place of our solar system in the galaxy... or even of the existence of our galaxy. (Up until very recently, we didn't even know that there were other galaxies. Our galaxy, when it was first known that there actually WAS a galaxy, was thought to be the whole universe.) From their perspective, the 'earth' and 'heaven' (i.e., whatever existed on the other side of the sky) represented all that there was.

Basically, they viewed the world as a 'terrarium'. (You might want to look that up.)

I do not say this things to disparage what they thought back then. They were trying to do what science is trying to do today... trying to understand reality. Today, we have technology and disciplined meta-procedures (scientific method) to help us extract answers from nature.

Back then, they did not.

Today, we have 'theories' to provide consistent explanations for what we are able to observe in nature, supplemented and validated by the additional information that we are able to extract from nature by means of our technology, our disciplined methods and our intellectual tools (mathematics, logic). Most of our theories are incomplete, so we continue to work on them... because we know that they are incomplete.

Back then, they did not have disciplined methods, and they did not have the technology to extract answers from nature. The only information they had access to was what they could see with their own eyeballs. There was no technological knowledge base or scientific context in which to interpret their observations, so they had to appeal to their imaginations... and the 'supernatural'... in order to make sense out of what they saw. Actually, what they really achieved was deluding themselves into thinking that they knew the truth. Amazingly, over time, this delusion has become codified, institutionalized, and incorporated... complete with franchises.

Basically, Genesis can be thought of as a 'theory', concocted by people who were constrained by lack of technology, methodology and intellectual tools... but they sure weren't constrained by lack of imagination.

Today, we try to interpret Genesis in the context of what we know to be true of the universe... galaxies, stars, planets, moons, gravity, orbits, inclination of the earth's axis, planetary rotation, etc. They problem is that Genesis can't be interpreted in terms of those things, because Genesis was written by men, based on oral traditions, and those men did not know about those things. They could only write about what they could see and what they could guess about the reasons that lay behind what they saw. In any event, it provided them with a mechanism to quell the innate anxiety that comes with fretting about how and why they came to be here.

They guessed wrong.

So... I think that the cosmological aspects of Genesis require a literal interpretation... no metaphors... no allegory... no hidden meaning. The key, though, is in understanding that the literal interpretation does not lead to a description of the way things are... it leads to a description of the way they thought things are. It leads to a naive description of reality, concocted by people who were doing the best they could with what they had.

It is absolutely appalling, though, to realize that hundreds of millions of people, TODAY, including participants in this forum, BELIEVE that this ignorant bovine excrement is actually TRUE.