Republicans grasping for straws...

[SB Shock]

The evidence for any "scientific" creation theory (Big bang, etc.) is shaky at best.

The Big Bang Theory is Shaky? You got to be kidding.

[SubGod22]

The Big Bang Theory takes a giant leap of faith to believe.

[TurFin]

The Catholic Church teaches that 7 days according to scripture does not relate to the 7 day timeframe we know in our society today. Per a priest I had this discussion with...As far as the church is concerned...we could still be in the midst of those 7 days referenced.

As for theories such as the big bang and our continual ever expanding universe...They are what they are described to be...theories. No one on this planet has lived long enough to give absolute fact and testimony to back proposed "theories". Not one scientist has been able to connect the dots on evolution to explain man's introduction to this planet. Yet some of the scientific community would tell me I'm stupid for not believing we evolved from something else.

I'm a whack job.

[RoyalShock]

The Catholic Church teaches that 7 days according to scripture does not relate to the 7 day timeframe we know in our society today. Per a priest I had this discussion with...As far as the church is concerned...we could still be in the midst of those 7 days referenced.

As for theories such as the big bang and our continual ever expanding universe...They are what they are described to be...theories. No one on this planet has lived long enough to give absolute fact and testimony to back proposed "theories". Not one scientist has been able to connect the dots on evolution to explain man's introduction to this planet. Yet some of the scientific community would tell me I'm stupid for not believing we evolved from something else.

I'm a whack job.

Welcome to the club!

(Our monthly meeting was moved to next Tuesday, by the way. ;) )

[McShocker]

1. First of all, I want to point out that scientific theory means something totally different than the way it gets used in everyday conversation. What everyday people call a theory is what scientist call a hypothesis. In other words, both are referring to an educated guess. Theory in the scientific world refers to a hypothesis that has a very large amount of evidence to support it and has not yet been disproven. It doesn't mean it is definitive, but it should not be discounted as "just a theory".

2. Having faith does not make one a "whack job".

3. The theory of evolution, in and of itself, does not deal with the origin of life. It is more concerned with the changes that occur among populations (all members of a species). It is pretty easy to find examples of populations that have evolved, over time, into new species. If you add an amount of time to the equation that is unfathomable to any man, it makes it much easier to accept that new species evolve from old ones.

4. The big bang theory concerns itself with the initial event that leads to the ever expanding universe. I find it very difficult to accept that the universe came to be in this manner. It is harder to accept beginnings without causes that processes over time.

5. The Book of Genesis creation story existed for centuries as an oral tradition before it was ever even written down. Then it was eventual written by a man, then canonized by a group of men. I understand and agree that nothing would be put into the Bible except by God's will, but that doesn't mean I believe everything it to be a perfect account of history. I believe it is possible to question the historical nature of the Bible without questioning its message.

6. I happen to think that it is more likely that man made a mistake, or series of them, or even just made up a story, that ended up in the Bible than it is that God would plant all this mountain of evidence that supports evolution just to trick us and test our faith.

7. I have no doubt that God "got the ball rolling" regarding creating both the universe and life in it. I also think that many of the steps along the way that the scientific community explains as "chance" or "random" have God's fingerprints all over them.

8. Now I will probably be considered a whack job by both sides, but feel free to let it rip.

[SB Shock]

The Big Bang Theory takes a giant leap of faith to believe.

In what way?

Of course it just a theory and may be disposed or modified just like alot of other of man theories have been as we gain perspective and knowledge.

[SB Shock]

6. I happen to think that it is more likely that man made a mistake, or series of them, or even just made up a story, that ended up in the Bible than it is that God would plant all this mountain of evidence that supports evolution just to trick us and test our faith.

Have you ever read any of Darwins books?

[1979Shocker]

The Big Bang Theory takes a giant leap of faith to believe.

It depends on what is meant by "Big Bang". I like to think of it as a "Big Creation". Both started as a single event. Scientist don't know what started the "Big Bang" event. Believers in God know that a Creator God caused the "Big Creation" event.

[McShocker]

Yeah, but this appears to be loaded question. Why specifically do you want to know?

Darwin's ideas were sound, but incomplete, so it is dangerous to judge the theory of evolution solely on his books.

The theory of evolution, ironically enough, has evolved with the development of technology. Darwin's proposed mechanisms were reasonable if you consider the technology he had to work with. During hisi lifetime evolution truly was "just a theory" because none of the most compelling evidence was available yet. Molecular genetics has since filled in many of the gaps.

[1979Shocker]

This time unit called a "day" is defined in terms of the Earth's revolution. An Earth that was not in existence at the beginning, thus the unit WE refer to as a day, i.e. the time of a single revolution of the Earth, did not exist, was not known, and can not be the same thing as the "day" refered to in Genesis. Besides, the Earth's daily revolution is not constant in time, it's always slowly changing and surely God would not choose an inexact time reference like that. :)

I suspect the original Old Testament word probably refered to a generalized time period. A better translation for the modern era could possibly be "period" or "stage".

I have always believed that the 6 days of creation were the steps or stages of creation - and not necessarily of equal duration, not 6 - 24 hour periods.

Likewise, things like Adam & Eve to me, do not reflect God creating a modern man and woman and placing them on the Earth, but merely the stage during which He planted the seeds (or provided conditions for life to develop if you prefer) that would result in humans when the Earth was ready for them. etc. etc. ... I'm not much of a literalist as you can tell, but to each his own. The story of creation as told in Genesis probably made a lot more sense for the people of that era than a treatise by Darwin.

All just my humble opinions, of course.

I take the days mentioned in Genesis 1 as actual 24 hour days. The Genesis account was not only a record of the creation of the universe, which included the earth, but was also a record of the renewing of the earth after a cataclysmic event. (The earth was covered with water as verse 2 indicates. Was this a worldwide flood even before the Noah flood?)

Genesis 1 doesn't state how much time elapsed between the creation of the universe and the renewal of the earth. This renewal of the earth is not only mentioned in Genesis 1, but also in Psalm 104:30 - "You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth."

The creation of the universe was a one time event. The renewal of the earth was a 6 day event.

This fits in perfectly with an old earth that had dinosaurs and fossils followed by our current human race that was created a few thousand years ago to replenish the earth (verse 28).

[SB Shock]

Yeah, but this appears to be loaded question. Why specifically do you want to know?

I'm just wondering if you have read them. I have tried but have found it boring.

I find arguing about evolution is just a diversion that destracts Christians from more important matters.

[McShocker]

Yeah, but this appears to be loaded question. Why specifically do you want to know?

I'm just wondering if you have read them. I have tried but have found it boring.

I find arguing about evolution is just a diversion that destracts Christians from more important matters.

I hear what you're saying about it being boring. Scientific journals are hard enough to get through sometimes, let alone entire books.

[rayc]

1979Shocker,

Let me share what I consider the six fundamental stages of creation according to my scientific beliefs, forget about theology for the moment.


My view of the 6 stages of creation.

1: The creation of the incredible density of energy that would form all that is in the universe. The Earth was certainly without form – as well as everything else as well. Can you say “BANG”, creation was started.

2: The formation of the first generation of stars. There were no planets at this time as it took the first star generation to create the heavy elements. It was the supernovas from the first generation of stars that dispersed the elements for ultimate planet formation.

3: The formation of the second generation of stars with rudimentary planets starting to form with conditions becoming suitable for the elementary seeds of life to begin to develop.

4: Formation of planets sufficiently cooled, with stable orbits swept of debris, well defined rotation rates and conditions suitable for more advanced life.

5: Primitive animal life first gets started (interesting that sea life is mentioned first in Genesis followed by land animals).

6: The story of evolution to more complex animals, including the introduction of mankind.


If you read these in conjunction with Genesis, I think you’ll see why I at least, find absolutely no conflict between the two and accept that a "day" in Genesis is far different than 24 hours.

But as I said “to each his own”. I do not criticize a person’s faith because it is just that – his faith.