I have a few questions....

[IslandRose]

I've been wondering about some things. As you know, I'm and Young Earth, Genesis literalist. I have no problem with the 6 days of creation and though I haven't done any heavy study on the subject, the study I have done hasn't moved me or caused me to rethink my position on this.

But it has raised questions in me about the other positions. I was wondering if anyone who held the old earth and/or theistic evolution position would mind answering a few question on your theology?

[IslandRose]

Thanks for replying.

So basically, you believe in the 6 days of creation but with a gap for a time of dinosaurs and such. That's the way my Dad sees it as well. He holds that is was during this gap time that Satan fell, the earth was destroyed and that what we have in Genesis is more of a "re-creation."

I personally don't see the need for a gap to explain the dinosaurs. I will hold my questions for a while longer to see if anyone else is willing to join the discussion as well.

[Christian]

Hello IslandRose,

I recently began to shift my viewpoint on this a little as well, agreeing with what Butero stated in the beginning of his post. I am a firm believer in the 7 day creation stated in the Bible, knowing how all things are possible with God. But a link that another member supplied on the subject of possible time between Genensis 1:1 and 1:2 really got me thinking. It does not go against Biblical teaching, and does NOT support evolution. It does present some very soild facts and documentation to support this possible period of time in between.

If you are truly curious about this I recommend checking out this site (without bias) and exploring it further for yourself.

Link:Rightly Dividing Geology

in Christ

-C-

[nebula]

My position is basically that the Genesis 1 account of Creation was more akin to a poetic account than a historical, scientific account. "Scientific accuracy" wasn't exactly in existance back then, as science is a historically young phenomenon.

So, I read Genesis 1 as a theological account of Creation, meant to teach us about God, not a scientific account meant to teach us about the Earth.

When I speak theology, I speak the language of theology and the 6 days of Creation. When I speak science, I speak the language of science and scientific understanding of Earth's history.

BTW - Earth as a globe was not understood in OT times. The word for "earth" is eretz which is more appropriately translated "the land."

Also, there are indications in the wording of the text that perhaps the 6 days of Creation were actually a re-creation - as the earth is mentioned before God said, "Let there be light."

[IslandRose]

OK, here is my first question. Do you believe in the evolution of man or do you believe he was a special creation?

I'm really not trying to "trap" anyone here, I am really trying to get an idea of what you believe.

[nebula]

I believe in evolutionary change -

But not the evolution of one species into another (or one genus into another, or one family into another, or one order into another, . . . ).

Man is a special creation.

[billie]

I agree, Neb. I believe in evolutionary changes up to a point, the chemical processes, the things observable, but not that we came from monkeys, or that all the T-Rex's are now chickens! Come on, now!

[IslandRose]

So Neb, do you believe that the animals evolved? And do you believe that all people came from two people, Adam and Eve?

Again, I am not trying to trick anyone into anything, I am trying to understand exactly what others believe.

[IslandRose]

Is there anyone else out there willing to answer my questions as well?

[nebula]

Like I said:

I believe in evolutionary change -

But not the evolution of one species into another (or one genus into another, or one family into another, or one order into another, . . . ).

Animals have evolved over time - for instance, you can check out certain Eastern and Western North American birds (i.e. Eastern meadowlarks and Western meadowlarks) and reason that they are two branches of the "original" meadowlark before the Ice Age glaciers separated the population.

But I have problems with the claims that all birds have a common ancestor.

Finches can change beak sizes all they want. But the birds never were not a finch.

I can buy that all finches on the globe are branches off of the first finch population the Lord ever created. But I cannot buy that finches (taxonomic family: Fringillidae ) arose from a population of something that wasn't Family Fringillidae.

Make sense?