one.opinion

Most people here prefer arguing to "win", rather than arguing (in the true sense of the word) to understand anything new.

It really does work, and the evidence exists. Before I really put much effort into a response, I need to know how serious you are about a discussion. Do you truly want to discuss and learn about a different viewpoint?

Why are credentials important only when the credentialed individual supports your personal beliefs - and never, if they believe something different?

It is both possible, and the most plausible scientific explanation for the incredible variation of life we see today. Even Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" organization accepts macroevolution (although they do not use the term) for the development of the diversity of species since Noah's Flood. https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/species-and-kinds-and-the-ark/ AiG estimates in this article about 8,000 species present on the ark, but there are approximately 1 million species of insects alone. The only possible explanation for AiG is that not only does macroevolution happen, it must happen at a rate far FASTER than what mainstream scientists actually accept. YEC dismiss uniformitarionism at every opportunity, unless it supports something they like. The evidence suggests that the magnetic field is highly variable over very long periods of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Ken Miller also wrote "Finding Darwin's God", which is an excellent work that views evolution as a tool that God used to create.

It is plain that humans differ from animals in ways that are not merely physical. God could have created biological humans through evolution, but taken a much more direct approach in imbuing that part that makes humans in “the image of God.”

I invite anyone (including you) that wants to discuss this further with me to do so - either in a separate thread or through private discussion. This is not the place.

Go back to the fundamental doctrinal issues I listed. You agreed with every single one. I have previously shown you why my views are consistent with Scripture. I’m not going to give you the fight you apparently want. God bless you, brother.

There is sufficient reason to think of the day order as non-literal. There is evening and morning prior to day 4 when the creation of the sun and moon are described. This is not necessarily a play-by-play of creation. I have also shown scripturally why I believe animal death before the fall does not contradict the Bible. I will not theologically play the “my way or the highway” game with anyone, ever - especially on issues of clearly lesser importance. But I will certainly explain to people why I believe my views are not inconsistent with the Bible.

I was very much YEC growing up and starting college. It took several years of an undergraduate and PhD degree in Biology for me to see enough evidence to change my mind. I'd love to chat with you regarding irreducible complexity (maybe in the science forum some day), but of course this is a moot point when evolution is viewed as a tool in God's hands.

Yes, we have our own interpretations - of nature and of Scripture. I am usually very willing to argue for my interpretation, but I don't think that would really serve the OP well. The cool thing is that we can disagree on some points, but agree on the critical theological points I have previously shared.

When the evidence God has made available to us strongly suggest that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and not thousands, then it bears considering if a literal, non-symbolic, reading of Genesis is appropriate. I don't think it is. Whichever way one reads the Genesis account, we can agree on the fundamentals of the first three chapters. 1. God is Creator of all things. 2. Mankind is the apex of God's creation. 3. God specially-imbued humanity with the ability to communicate with Him. 4. This connection was broken when humans chose sin - essentially, chose their own way over God's. 5. The coming of Jesus Christ was prophesied as a means of God bringing humanity back to Him.

Hi Sophie. I also believe this is the case. I grew up with the teaching that the universe and everything in it was approximately 6,000 years old. I also believed that any scientist that did not accept this was deluded and brainwashed. I studied Biology as an undergraduate and went on to earn a PhD degree in Molecular Virology. I've taught Biology for over 20 years now. Throughout my 10-ish years of education, although I was not looking to change my mind about YEC, I could not help but learn continuously more about the evidence supporting evolution and saw through the weak arguments that had been presented to me throughout my childhood. As others have mentioned, I certainly recognize the possibility that I could be wrong about evolution, but it is extremely difficult to explain away the supporting evidence. I believe I have served my Lord faithfully by pursuing knowledge of his creation to the best of my ability. I do not see Christianity and science as any sort of conflict, but as beautiful complements to one another. I know others with similar beliefs to mine that question whether or not Adam and Eve were archetypes or true individuals, but I believe the genealogies provided in Luke and elsewhere indicate that they were historical people. Dr. Joshua Swamidass (computational biologist at Washington University in St. Louis) has written a book about the Genealogical Adam and Eve, maintaining that God could have indeed created them de novo, just as a literal interpretation of Genesis would indicate, but alongside other humans. It appears that the strongest objections to the concept of evolution are centered on Adam and Eve, and Dr. Swamidass shows that these objections are unnecessary. There are several other posters here with similar beliefs to my own, but it is probably safe to say we are in a bit of a minority among the rest of the Worthy population. :-)

Then fight that, and not people.

That is absolutely your right. It would be nice if you were able to allow others to vote how they wish without "demonizing" their choice.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and my allegiance is to Him, and not a political party. For the first time in about 30 years of voting, I will be voting for a Democratic candidate for President.

Just for the record, many students have thanked me for supporting their faith in Jesus, but thank you for your concern.

1. I have a PhD in Biology and have been teaching the subject for over 20 years. 2. "Kind" is not defined in the Bible, although some examples are given. This is similar to you asking me to define a living organism, and I reply "Cat. Fish. Amoeba." When you have to add a paragraph of what "most Creationists" believe a "kind" is, then it is clearly not a defined term. 3. There is nothing in the Bible that claims that a "kind" cannot change over time. 4. You are setting your own opinion on equal footing with the Word of God. 5. You are becoming belligerent, and I don't intend to engage any further - for your sake, for my sake, and for the sake of God's Kingdom.

If you want to make the argument that the Bible teaches that sickness and animal death occurred only after Adam's sin, then you will have to produce Bible passages that actually say this. I don't know how to explain this differently, but this belief is entirely your opinion, and not deduced from the words of the Bible. God's creation is amazing and wonderful, and points to a beautiful Creator of surpassing knowledge and creativity. You are starting to get carried away here. The Bible does not make any statement that kinds are unable to change over time. Additionally, the Bible does not explain anything about what a "kind" actually is. There is a VAST difference between disagreeing with your personal interpretation of the Bible and calling God a liar - something I am absolutely not doing. This is beginning to sound very much like "believe the way I do, or you are calling God a liar". Is that what you intend?

I use both God's Word and God's Works as my authority. No, this is not true. You and I have already agreed on 7 major theological points. You had nothing to add, aside from one minor correction that I agreed with. Acceptance of evolution does nothing to "explain away" the critical points of the Genesis account. No, the Bible limits that to spiritual death. Remember that the God said Adam would die on the day he ate of the fruit, and his death was not physical. It is interesting to note that the "dust of the ground" is teeming with microorganisms. As I mentioned earlier, we completely agree on the major theological points. There is a lot in my life that I will not be proud of on Judgement Day, but my acceptance of evolution as the work of His hands will not be one of those things. This is part of my instruction to love my Lord with my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

This overstates what the Bible actually says. I would agree that this passage indicates that Jesus affirmed Adam and Eve. However, Jesus never affirmed a 144-hour creation period and did not address creation prior to Adam and Eve. Agreed again. This is one of the reasons I believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures and not archetypes, as many theistic evolutionists do. I also accept that sin was introduced into humanity through Adam. I might debate regarding "inherited" sin, depending upon what you specifically mean, but it seems we are rather like-minded on these points you have raised. As you can see by my agreement with your points, it is apparent that acceptance of evolution and acceptance of "the very foundations of the Christian faith" are not incompatible.

Agreed, the back and forth really doesn't result in anything positive after a point. I'm glad we, as brothers in Christ, could have a peaceful, respectful conversation despite our differences. I do not dispute that the usage of yom really does suggest a 24-hour period. My contention is that a 24-hour period is symbolic in intent, and not literal. The language of Genesis 3, for example, really does suggest a real serpent. However, as you've stated, the reality is more complicated. The Bible does not say this. Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 15, as well as Romans 5, focuses only on humans. Additionally, these passages in context (good hermeneutics) juxtapose spiritual life in Jesus Christ to spiritual death due to sin. This would strongly suggest that the passages are focused on spiritual death, not physical death. As I mentioned previously, I left the YEC "camp" as I discovered more and more falsehood coming from that group and realized the truth of God's creation. My "two horses" are pulling in the same direction.

Good point - yes, Eve was deceived. She did however choose her own way, based on what she understood, rather than listen to God's instruction. I'm glad to hear the first part. I disagree with the second. Christianity is not about believing in what "kinds" can or cannot do over time. Additionally, there is not a single word of the Bible that indicates that "kinds" cannot change over time. Spiritual death came from sin. God told Adam that if he ate of the tree, "that day" he would surely die. You and I both know Adam did not physically die on that day, so the death could not refer to a physical one. Please recognize the difference between opinion and fact. It is certainly not impossible, you just do not believe it to be possible. I was exposed to a great deal of YEC propaganda growing up, and over the period of about a decade, my introduction into scientific evidence showed me that what I was once taught about young earth creationism was flat-out wrong. There are a lot of things that the Holy Spirit convicts me about - what I believe to be a beautiful work God set into motion over the span of billions of years is not one of those things.

You are right - I do not believe a literal interpretation is the best treatment of Genesis 1-3. You asked for evidence of figurative language and I provided those very clear examples to you. We could go around and around, each defending our points of view, but I don't think that is a good use of my time and likely not yours, either. I do believe it is important to address something you mentioned in your first post (and why I felt the need to engage): I believe that you and I would agree very strongly on the important themes from Genesis 1-3, even though we clearly disagree on some relatively insignificant details. Take a look at my list of themes and let me know if there is anything you disagree with, or if you think there is critical doctrine that I have omitted. 1. God is the Creator of all things. 2. Humanity is the pinnacle of God's creation. 3. God specially-created humanity (through a literal Adam and Eve) with the ability to commune with Him. 4. God ordained the unity of Adam and Eve together. 5. Adam and Eve chose to rely on their own wisdom and/or intuition to make a choice in defiance of God's instructions. 6. This rebellious sin broke the connection of humanity to God. 7. God promised a solution for this broken relationship in a prophetic glimpse of the coming Jesus Christ. Clearly, the Bible teaches much more on the work of Jesus Christ to offer the repair of that relationship in individual lives, but that is not part of Genesis 1-3. I dare hope that you will find it possible that someone that is a Christ follower can also accept that God created living things through the process of evolution.

That isn't sufficient reason to claim there could not be exceptions to this general pattern. One portion that I mentioned earlier in the conversation is the description of the event of Adam naming the animals in Genesis 2. 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. The passage, if read literally, suggests that God brought all animals to Adam to try to identify an appropriate helper. Only when no appropriate helper was found, God decided to create Eve. This is clearly figurative, unless one believes Adam had the possibility of taking an animal as a helper and mate. Genesis 3 also carries significant figurative language when mentioning the activity of the serpent. If the serpent was really just a serpent, then it was somehow not only a talking serpent, but far more knowledgeable than Adam and Eve about right and wrong (impossible). If the serpent was Satan incognito, then the punishment applied to the serpent in 14 was unjust (also impossible). I don't know what the actual historical events were, but there is no choice but to accept figurative language here, as well. The seven day cycle is symbolic. The symbolism is clear when we look at Exodus 23 10 “For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, 11 but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.12 “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. God as creator is clearly affirmed throughout the Bible. A 144-hour creation period is not. Your argumentation is a bit lacking here, but I'll go ahead and respond :-) Christians Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth published an article describing how different dating systems - Carbon-14 dating and varve counting in some unique lakes like Lake Suigetsu - show that the earth is far older than 10,000 years (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf). Through standard dating techniques, the Grand Canyon has some parts that are about 70 million years old. I'm not an expert on geology, so maybe @teddyv can help us in his area of expertise. No, it really doesn't work both ways. There is zero reason to assume something is true when there is a complete lack of evidence to support it. Where is the proof that I am not a talking, typing magical unicorn? The fact that you cannot prove such a thing does not mean the the probably that I am/am not a talking, typing magical unicorn is 50/50. I suppose I can't make you trust my word, so I'll give you another example. There is a particular allele present in a very high proportion of Tibetans that has been implicated in their physiological suitability to high altitude. This particular allele of the EPAS1 gene is present in 87% of Tibetans, compared to only 9% of the Han Chinese population. This allele is also notably absent from other populations at high altitudes like those in the Andes mountains. I think we can both agree that this particular mutation did not "break" anything, but instead, allows the Tibetan population to live much more comfortably in their high-altitude, low-oxygen environment.