Genetic testing...achondroplasia

[Smurfette]

Thanks for the post, VIP. The thing is - science is all made up of models. As long as those models can be used to predict the world and they have not yet been proven to predict incorrectly, then they are useful as science. And science often has contradictory models, but can be useful in different settings. Take the particle theory and the wave theory of electrons. Or the hybridization theory and the VSPER theory in chemistry. In both the physics and the chemistry examples, both theories describe the same phenomenon, but are extremely different (almost mutually exclusive), but can both be used to make useful predictions about the world. Evolution is the same. Like the particle/wave theory of the electron or the hybridization/VSPER theories in chemistry, evolution is one of the models in science that are used to view the world and make predictions.

 

The beauty of science is that it is subject to criticism and it is subject to change. There is no "fundamental truth" in science. If you can prove conclusively that an old theory is wrong (prove scientifically not religiously or philosophically), then science changes. Once upon a time we thought the world was flat. Once upon a time we thought that people got sick because they had too much of one of the 4 humors. Once upon a time we thought that the sun and the stars all revolved around the Earth. That was science then. When the evidence became conclusively strong that those theories were wrong, science changed. Science is very different today.

[vogue]

Hey vip, I just read over your points again. I have come to realize that to argue with you would be difficult since you deny the very existence of a Creator. I fully agree with you that design by a Creator is NOT science as we know it. For me, because I believe in the Bible and the Creator (God), I believe that God created science. All the science we have not yet scratched the surface of, He already knows it. Because He created science, God exists outside of it. He is not bound by it. This is why He is God. I am fully aware that this requires faith. I am just wondering whether you acknowledge that belief in evolution also requires that same kind of faith? I ask this because evolution does not explain the origin of the universe. I noticed you mentioned some matter-anti matter theories (matter produced while anti-matter also produced). As far as I know, anti-matter is also matter? (same mass, opposite charge?) So at the end of the day, how did ALL MATTER come to be (whether you speak of 'matter' or anti-matter')? You need to have faith to believe the Universe created itself. Evolution rests on this fact, no?

 

I can understand that there is empirical evidence that 'supports' evolution. But this same evidence is not inconsistent with the Genesis account. This same evidence can be used to support the Genesis account. It all comes down to the bias with which you evaluate the data. For example, it has been argued that fossil fuels could have only formed through millions of years of pressure application to underlying sediments as layers built up over 'millions' of years. Yet, if you consider the biblical Flood in Genesis, it easily explains the enormous pressure needed to pressurise underlying carbon material to yield such fuel formation. I have read over much evidence like this that may be used to support either belief. It just depends on the way you want to interpret it even if you may not believe that this is so. The idea that the earth is billions of years old is simply a must for evolution because the theory doesn't work without it. This is the way evolutionist scientists approach the data. So far, all empirical evidence I have come across nullifies neither the six day creation nor the evolution theory. If you have some such evidence, I would like to hear it. Creationist scientists can get the facts wrong in the same way that evolutionist scientists can because we are all continually learning. A creationist may use evidence wrongly to support a Creator and an evolutionist may also use evidence wrongly to support evolution. But, as you know, revision is necessary in science.

 

Regarding my comments of evolution as non-science. I only mean to point out that evolution can not be accepted as a scientific proof because science has not discredited a six day creation by a Creator. For this reason, those who take the Genesis account literally should not be considered a 'bunch of crazies'. Each side holds strong beliefs and so obviously debates can get heated. I will only say that each system of belief requires faith. So, scrictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation (by God) can be considered 'science'.

[The Law]

Then, Vogue, do you believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old? That is the estimate given by Christians who interpret the Bible literally based on the history of the people spoken in it.

 

This is clearly not true based on the age of many earth structures (calculated through radiometric dating). Now, another thing, some creationists argue that "contamination" can cause the earth's age to appear older (i.e. meteorites and what not crashing into the earth may be the rocks that are being measured)... however, according to the Bible, God created the Heavens and the earth around the same time. This would mean that the age of the earth must be around the same as the rest of the universe (and thus the genealogy that was used by creationists to show that the Earth is 6000 years old contradicts itself since there are definitely objects much older than that in the universe).

 

Additionally, we know that there rock formations and fossils found that have existed for millions and even billions of years ago, I really do not understand how one can deny this clear evidence indicating that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally.

 

ALSO, if the Bible was meant to be literally interpreted, where is the talk of the humans running from the dinosaurs (Jurrasic Park style hahahah)?

[The Law]

Something I wanted to add...

 

How do creationists explain the transitionary state found of many organisms?

 

It is clear that speciation does happen. Here are some quick examples...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/979950.stm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/26/14449

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1123973.stm (ring species of greenish warblers)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

 

Let's not forget about ploidy! There are millions and millions and trillions of known instances of this.

 

 

Now, if God created all the animals on earth... then how do you explain the fact that new animals appear? God is clearly not creating them... and thus thus we can infer that speciation DOES occur. Why would the mechanism of speciation suddenly start happening? It must be a mechanism that has been present in the past as well. This indicates that you cannot interpret the Bible literally. Well - you could, but you'd be naive to do so.

 

There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms (Endler 1986). Examples are the change in color of some organ, such as the yellow body or brown eyes of Drosophila, coat color in mice (Barsh 1996), scale color in fish (Houde 1988), and plumage pattern in birds (Morton 1990). Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures.

 

For those people who think large scale evolution can't happen, THINK of all the variances in humans we see. For example, dwarfism (haha coming back on this)... or what about pfeiffer's syndrome ....

 

or doctors removing a 3rd arm in a baby:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/XHG80406060904_nr.jpeg

 

These are examples of LARGE scale changes, some are larger than others... but they do exist (there are many many more, that I, being simply a student in my 3rd year of university cannot think of at the top of my head). These changes MAY be adaptive in certain environments. Perhaps a large scale change may be neutral... which would maybe then allow for it to persist until one day it becomes adaptive! For those of you that think that "evolution" is far-fetched, just look at the examples of diversity of humans... and then imagine many other species that live in the WILD...

 

Remembering that small genetic changes can drastically alter morphology, it is important to remember that evolution is opportunistic and happens stepwise. It takes a long time to see big changes, but it does happen once speciation occurs then the gene flow between the 2 species is eliminated. This allows them to diverge more and more over time.

 

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

Another interesting article regarding genes that may allow macroevolution to occur.

 

There is so much evidence for evolution, at the very least speciation definitely exists (and is observable). How can you account for this then and still say that the Bible can be interpreted literally?

[The Law]

Transitional forms Above (can't put more than 4 images in a post so had to repost)

 

So, your earlier claim that Evolutoin was not observable... well... I'll let you decide whether you want to face the facts or not.

 

homo erectus (looks a lot like us eh?)

 

 

Sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/images/turkana.jpg

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/lines/pakicetus_nostrils.jpg

 

or the many transitional forms of hominids seen below:

[vogue]

Hey Law, you are killing me here:D Ok anyways I have spent some time trying to locate my sources. I have a lot of copied and condensed info that i made originally for my own use. Never figured I'd be arguing this online:confused: Once again, I have found that even for the arguments you have presented above (they are pretty good) the empirical data have been interpreted in such a way as to fit the mould of evolution. The same evidence is consistent with the literal Genesis account. It just depends on what you believe is more likely: Creation by God (I'm referring to literal Genesis), or Creation by Chance. Here are some whole document articles.

 

 

Speciation is consistent with creation in genesis

http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp

 

The Bible is consistent with the discovery of dinosaurs

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

 

 

Radiometric dating depends on assumptions and extrapolation. While the measurement of isotopic decay is accurate, its application to the ‘age’ of the earth is subject to questionable interpretation.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp

 

 

Fossilization is consistent with Creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/fossil.asp

 

 

There are severe problems with the evolutionist interpretation of ‘transitional forms’

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/human_fossils.asp

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/humanfossils.asp

 

As an aside: in regards to irreducible complexity, it presents an interesting situation. Complete sets of machinery that must be present for life to exist are numerous. They would have had to occur spontaneously. There is no opportunity for mutation or natural selection to manufature these life sustaining features. Now what about adaptation itself? I am only in my second year of uni but I feel compelled to ask: How did the features of adaptation evolve? I have found that supporters of evolution can always tell why a feature evolved, but never how it evolved.

 

A living organisms requires homeostasis; it follows that homeostasis evolved because it was necessary for life. That's the why. But then how? What was the impetus that drove such precise, such ingenious homeostatic mechanisms? It seems to me that there was some consciousness driving it. It wasn't random mutation. Neither was it natural selection. The case against mutation is specifically unique. According to evolutionists, mutations are required at a relatively high rate for evolution to proceed. Why then, and how did DNA repair evolve? Obviously, because mutations tend to kill and not to enhance. Perhaps there have been mutations that have been adaptive. But enough simultaneous mutations to co-ordinate highly complicated processes that not only support life, but also make it meaningful? To me, that's so unlikely as to be ludicrous. When a scientist who has never seen of heard of Mt. Rushmore visits the site, he may in fact look at other features of the area to help him come to conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that his IMMEDIATE reaction (his bias) is that the carving is not a chance event. Therefore, this is the manner in which he interprets what he observes. Given that the mechanisms of evolution have not been established, there is a lot of faith involved, almost too much.

[vogue]

Oh yeah the articles I condensed and the ones listed are all by Ph Ds just in case anyone cares:)

[avenir001]

According to evolutionists, mutations are required at a relatively high rate for evolution to proceed. Why then, and how did DNA repair evolve? Obviously, because mutations tend to kill and not to enhance. Perhaps there have been mutations that have been adaptive. But enough simultaneous mutations to co-ordinate highly complicated processes that not only support life, but also make it meaningful? To me, that's so unlikely as to be ludicrous.

 

I agree with this completely.

See, Law...this is the probability argument I was using yesterday.

[unknown user 7]

Can't we just end this debate accepting the fact that I am right and all of you guys are wrong. That way I feel good about myself, and you all feel completely neutral about things and can get along with our daily lives. As oppose to getting ready to knock/ flame someone else down. Plus, there are much more important life crisises to take about in other threads, like "will Jochi find a cheaper condo," "why does Law look up pictures of blowup dolls," "why does AMmd like male blow up doll," and other such important topics in the "What is everybody doing" thread. So let's all go and shift our energy where it really matters.

[unknown user 7]

Lol, I have to double post cause I found this really funny, but when I just posted the above, I realized I put that we "should s**t our energy" lol. Just thought I'd share.

 

Lol.

 

[AMmd]

hahahaha funny unknown... how about "why does unknown have an obsession with AMmd?" lol

[avenir001]

...there are much more important life crisises to take about in other threads, like "will Jochi find a cheaper condo," "why does Law look up pictures of blowup dolls," "why does AMmd like male blow up doll," "when will unknown come out of the closet," and other such important topics in the "What is everybody doing" thread. So let's all go and shift our energy where it really matters.

 

stop promoting what's everyone doing thread, unknown!

that is a "creeps only" thread...we need our privacy too...

[unknown user 7]

hahahaha funny unknown... how about "why does unknown have an obsession with AMmd?" lol

 

 

 

How dare you make such accusations this is like the second time I have mad reference to you. Maybe ur just full of urself. Lol. I am joking AMmd, you know we both crave attention.

[unknown user 7]

stop promoting what's everyone doing thread, unknown!

that is a "creeps only" thread...we need our privacy too...

 

Well sorry. I didn't know.

 

[AMmd]

How dare you make such accusations this is like the second time I have mad reference to you. Maybe ur just full of urself. Lol. I am joking AMmd, you know we both crave attention.

 

hahaha true dat homie, true dat! ... unknown is my peep y'all, so dont mess with him (her?)! lol

[unknown user 7]

so dont mess with him (her?)! lol

 

Lol, you made my day with that.

[The Law]

Can't we just end this debate accepting the fact that I am right and all of you guys are wrong. [/then we'd both be wrong.

 

Hey Law, you are killing me here

 

All in good fun Not that trying to kill you is fun

 

Radiometric dating depends on assumptions and extrapolation. While the measurement of isotopic decay is accurate, its application to the ‘age’ of the earth is subject to questionable interpretation.

 

Yes, but we do know definitely that there are objects that are billions of years old in the universe based on this. So this very fact goes against the idea that the universe is 6000 years old (since it was created at the same time as the Earth according to Genesis)... and indicates that the Bible may not be interpreted literally.

 

There are severe problems with the evolutionist interpretation of ‘transitional forms’

 

However, one must remember that the Bible never mentioned other humanoid forms on Earth. The fossil record shows that they have indeed existed.

 

A living organisms requires homeostasis; it follows that homeostasis evolved because it was necessary for life. That's the why. But then how? What was the impetus that drove such precise, such ingenious homeostatic mechanisms? It seems to me that there was some consciousness driving it. It wasn't random mutation. Neither was it natural selection. The case against mutation is specifically unique. According to evolutionists, mutations are required at a relatively high rate for evolution to proceed. Why then, and how did DNA repair evolve? Obviously, because mutations tend to kill and not to enhance. Perhaps there have been mutations that have been adaptive. But enough simultaneous mutations to co-ordinate highly complicated processes that not only support life, but also make it meaningful? To me, that's so unlikely as to be ludicrous. When a scientist who has never seen of heard of Mt. Rushmore visits the site, he may in fact look at other features of the area to help him come to conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that his IMMEDIATE reaction (his bias) is that the carving is not a chance event. Therefore, this is the manner in which he interprets what he observes. Given that the mechanisms of evolution have not been established, there is a lot of faith involved, almost too much.

 

This is a strong argument you have, I'll have to think about it for a while. However, it does not disprove the notion that evolution is a major driving force in speciation and diversification of life-forms on earth. It also does not recconcile the differences between radiometric dating accounts of the age of objects in the universe and the Bible's account for the age of the universe.

 

[unknown user 7]

Can't we just end this debate accepting the fact that I am right and all of you guys are wrong. [/then we'd both be wrong.

 

 

 

All in good fun Not that trying to kill you is fun

 

 

 

Yes, but we do know definitely that there are objects that are billions of years old in the universe based on this. So this very fact goes against the idea that the universe is 6000 years old (since it was created at the same time as the Earth according to Genesis)... and indicates that the Bible may not be interpreted literally.

 

 

 

However, one must remember that the Bible never mentioned other humanoid forms on Earth. The fossil record shows that they have indeed existed.

 

 

 

This is a strong argument you have, I'll have to think about it for a while. However, it does not disprove the notion that evolution is a major driving force in speciation and diversification of life-forms on earth. It also does not recconcile the differences between radiometric dating accounts of the age of objects in the universe and the Bible's account for the age of the universe.

 

 

Thanks for diverting this thread back to its purpose. Lol. Let's encourage hate amongst ourselves. Lol.

[paulos]

As a Christian and a scientist, I cannot see why:

 

a. the Genesis account must be taken literally, esp. if Jesus spoke in parables

b. God cannot have used the mechanism of evolution, as a principle of creation

 

The law of entropy shows that a will must be organizing life into forms that tend away from heat death, but anyone with a few hours and a petri dish can prove that adaptation occurs in living organisms.

 

According to classical Greek philosophy, we thus have:

 

1. thesis: Evolution is a fact based on empirical evidence

2. antithesis: God created the universe

3. synthesis: God uses evolution in the process of creation

[The Law]

Thanks for diverting this thread back to its purpose. Lol. Let's encourage hate amongst ourselves. Lol.

 

There isn't any hate, this is a friendly debate.

[vogue]

 

All in good fun Not that trying to kill you is fun

 

you lawyers are funny ppl:D

 

 

 

Yes, but we do know definitely that there are objects that are billions of years old in the universe based on this. So this very fact goes against the idea that the universe is 6000 years old (since it was created at the same time as the Earth according to Genesis)... and indicates that the Bible may not be interpreted literally.

 

Well actually radiometric dating is definitive only for thousands of years, not millions and definitely not billions. The latter require severe assumptions (the bias I referred too). Radiometric dating is also only useful for dating things that were once living because it involves estimating how much radioactive substance the organism contained at its time of death. The age is then calculated based on how much radioactive substance the fossil presently contains. Of the radioactive elements now used (like C 14) this is definitive only for thousands of years because a billion year old fossil should technically contain no more radioactivity (the half life of C-14 is about 5800 rs). So the approx 6000 year old earth has not been truly scientifically falsified.

Take note that the forefathers of evolution were either atheists or they became atheists. They saw these assumptions as fit because they saw no other way for life to become how it has become. In my humble opinion, Christians who have accepted evolution have done so only because they have become convinced that the evidence 'supports' it. Now that more Christians who believe in the literal Genesis account are becoming renowned scientists, they are finding more and more that the evidence is not inconsistent with the Genesis account. History has chronicled the separation of religion and science. But we are now seeing that belief in God, indeed belief in Genesis, can be reconciled with the science of today.

 

 

However, one must remember that the Bible never mentioned other humanoid forms on Earth. The fossil record shows that they have indeed existed.

 

 

Ya, but remember that the so called humanoid fossil record is EXTREMELY limited. If we have been evolving for millions or even thousands and thousands of years, where are all the fossils? Also most skeleton recontructions are from minimal skeletal remains. The fraudulent Nebraska man was contructed from a single tooth!. Also remember the Piltdown man hoax? Additionally, mtDNA studies are now showing that the Neandertals may have in fact been fully human.

[paulos]

In the embarrassing history of the church in its attempt to limit science, it was claimed, at various times, that:

 

1. the earth is flat

2. the sun revolves around the earth

3. women have no souls

4. non-Europeans were animals, not men/women

 

Personally, I think we should always take the Bible as it was intended, metaphorically, unless stated in in precise theological terms, like in St. Paul's writings.

 

I mean, if you think the Bible is a scientific text, why do you eat pork, or lobster? But Moses wrote for an audience who did not have microwaves and convecting ovens to kills the bugs in those foodstuffs... would you have me interpret it otherwise?

 

Jesus himself said, he spoke in parables, because the secrets of heaven were hard to understand. Personally, I am not threatened if the Genesis account is simply a metaphor, as the people of that time had no knowledge of modern discoveries. I would give even more glory to God when I understood the marvelous complexity and beauty of creation, as seen through a microscope, or a telescope. So open your eyes! Love God with all your mind!

 

If you still think it must be literal, please tell me why the account varies from chapter 1 to chapter 2, wrt the order of events?

[unknown user 7]

There isn't any hate, this is a friendly debate.

 

That's a nyce ryme. Lol. You should be a rapper.

 

Show off your freestyling skills.

[The Law]

not millions and definitely not billions. The latter require severe assumptions (the bias I referred too). Radiometric dating is also only useful for dating things that were once living because it involves estimating how much radioactive substance the organism contained at its time of death. The age is then calculated based on how much radioactive substance the fossil presently contains. Of the radioactive elements now used (like C 14) this is definitive only for thousands of years because a billion year old fossil should technically contain no more radioactivity (the half life of C-14 is about 5800 rs). So the approx 6000 year old earth has not been truly scientifically falsified.

Take note that the forefathers of evolution were either atheists or they became atheists. They saw these assumptions as fit because they saw no other way for life to become how it has become. In my humble opinion, Christians who have accepted evolution have done so only because they have become convinced that the evidence 'supports' it. Now that more Christians who believe in the literal Genesis account are becoming renowned scientists, they are finding more and more that the evidence is not inconsistent with the Genesis account. History has chronicled the separation of religion and science. But we are now seeing that belief in God, indeed belief in Genesis, can be reconciled with the science of today.

 

That's carbon 14. You can use a multitude of other elements, such as Samarium-147 (half-life of 146 billion years). It does not require severe assumptions, this is a common misconception since the rate of decay of the elements being used is known within +/- 1%. Honestly, if so many scientists so vigorously defend radiometric dating (note - radiometric, not carbon dating ... there are many elements you can use as I just mentioned) - don't you feel a little weird saying to all of them that they are wrong.

 

What specific assumptions do you claim they make are incorrect?

 

Ya, but remember that the so called humanoid fossil record is EXTREMELY limited. If we have been evolving for millions or even thousands and thousands of years, where are all the fossils? Also most skeleton recontructions are from minimal skeletal remains. The fraudulent Nebraska man was contructed from a single tooth!. Also remember the Piltdown man hoax? Additionally, mtDNA studies are now showing that the Neandertals may have in fact been fully human.

 

Homo neanderthalensis may have been human, but the mitochondrial studies are inconclusive. This is just one of several different humanoid forms found. I find that you are looking for excuses to deny the overwhelming case supporting the claim that you may not interpret the bible literally. There are some well preserved fossils of other humanoids, not all of them are highly eroded.

[vogue]

Hey Paulos, some great points you’ve raised. However, I have some comments:

 

the embarrassing history of the church in its attempt to limit science, it was claimed, at various times, that:

 

1. the earth is flat

2. the sun revolves around the earth

3. women have no souls

4. non-Europeans were animals, not men/women

 

Please notice that NONE of the above are taught in the Bible. With regards to number one the Bible actually points to the roundness the earth (see Is. 40:21-22, Job26:10). The interesting thing is that the writers probably had no clue what they were writing. But that did not matter because God knew, He was there when it all went down, and He was speaking through them. With regards to number 2, this idea never originated in the church, and it’s certainly not from the Bible. It was actually proposed by the secular science of the times. The Roman Catholic Church then erroneously adopted and endorsed this viewpoint in an attempt to marry religion with secular science. Can you really attack the literal interpretation of Genesis because at some point in history a religious group called the Catholic Church decided to get the facts all wrong? As you know, 3 and 4 are so utterly unscriptural that I will not even address them.

 

Personally, I think we should always take the Bible as it was intended, metaphorically, unless stated in precise theological terms, like in St. Paul's writings.

 

Are you aware that the apostle Paul as well as all the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself took Genesis 1-11 quite plainly? Here are just a few of Paul’s inspired thoughts.

1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 5:12; 1 Timothy 2:13–4:1

 

why do you eat pork, or lobster? But Moses wrote for an audience who did not have microwaves and convecting ovens to kills the bugs in those foodstuffs... would you have me interpret it otherwise?

 

No I wouldn’t! What an awesome and profound interpretation of scripture! I love the way you do not mutilate and twist scripture around to make a point. One of the reasons the Israelites were commanded not to eat pork, for example, is probably because of all these bugs that could lead to disease transmission quite easily in those times. It’s very likely a reason why pork was considered unclean. But also, many of the animals the Lord commanded them not to eat were used by Israel’s neighbors as sacrifices to idols and consumed in pagan worship. Remember that the lineage of Christ (the Seed of a woman spoken of in Genesis after the Fall) was to occur through Israel and God had to protect that lineage from being absorbed into ungodly worship. This was crucial. Our salvation was not a game to God.

 

Jesus himself said, he spoke in parables, because the secrets of heaven were hard to understand.

 

Close but not exactly. I think you are speaking of Matt. 13 10-16? Here, Jesus explains to the disciples that parables were meant to both reveal and conceal the truth. But, the concealment of truth was meant as judgment for those who refused to believe. Jesus further explains that while a hardened heart to the truth brings blindness, openness to the truth brings greater understanding (vs. 12). This is why He quoted Is. 6:9,10 because this hiding of the truth was a judgment for unbelief as happened in the prophet Isaiah‘s ministry. Jesus was saying that the ‘mysteries’ of the kingdom of heaven are actually readily available to those who are willing to believe God’s Word when they hear it. Many in Jesus’ day were not, their hearts were cold, and so they were blinded from the truth.

 

I mean, if you think the Bible is a scientific text,

 

Personally, I am not threatened if the Genesis account is simply a metaphor, as the people of that time had no knowledge of modern discoveries.

 

Certainly, the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook. But taking the Genesis account plainly is not inconsistent with science. To understand Genesis, we must consider what the author’s intent was. In looking at the account of creation, it’s clear that Moses, being divinely inspired by God, wrote the text as an authentic historical account. Not as a myth or fantasy. The New Testament writers thought so, even the apostle Paul. Were they all wrong? Maybe I should not use the word ‘literally’. What I mean to say is I take the Bible ‘in a straightforward manner’. I see a metaphor as a metaphor, poetry as poetry and a figure of speech as a figure of speech. Genesis 1 and 2 were not written in modern scientific language, but neither were they written in what would have passed for science in those days. If the Bible was written in the scientific language of its day it would be no more than a relic today. It speaks to every kind of audience today because it is God’s divine word.

The reason I reject evolution is because the entire mission of Christ depends on the ‘literal’ Genesis account. Evolution is not scriptural. The Hebrew word for day used in the Genesis account refers to a 24 hr period. There are actually several words the writer could have used to convey a longer time period. Evolution and the Bible cannot coexist in any type of marriage.They defy each other.

 

Finally, evolution is a theory, not a fact.

 

I would give even more glory to God when I understood the marvelous complexity and beauty of creation, as seen through a microscope, or a telescope.

 

YES!! ME TOO!!

 

So open your eyes! Love God with all your mind!

 

This is all I am trying to do!

 

If you still think it must be literal, please tell me why the account varies from chapter 1 to chapter 2, wrt the order of events?

 

This is a common misconception. The accounts do not vary. A good article that touches on this issue can be found at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp