Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[Jose]

yes i see your point but its the most mind busiling question i can think of. its even hard for me to answer this question i'll be getting off soon so i hope u guys wont miss me to much but now on your therie im confused.

It's a tough question. It requires assessing the data without pre-judging it. That's hard enough in itself--and even harder getting all of the data to think about. Creation's a lot easier to figure out: "god did it" is all you need.

When you have time to come back, read through some of the threads to get a sense of the information we've looked at, and the types of discussions we've had. It might give you some ideas about what to say next.

[fire_of_Jesus]

so can we be friends or not? i would like to write more but i really have to go.

[ST88]

Now, I believe in evolution I just don't want to be a blind follower. Lets consider the eye. A species of cave fish lost the use of eyes because they "No longer needed it". This made me curious because it was said that animals developed light spots so that they could differentiate which way the sun was shining from. So if one cave fish gains a small amount of eyesight and it helps him survive just a little then why would the species have been able to lose it so easily, couldn't some aspect of it benefit them?

In the absence of light, there is no advantage to having eyes. Therefore, any mutations that interfere with eye development are not disadvantageous. Instead, if they remove an organ that (1) costs energy to produce and maintain, and (2) provides an orifice that infectious organisms can use to gain entry, then the mutation may well be an advantage. Different populations of cave beasties have lost eyes to greater or lesser extent, depending on which mutations happen to have occurred.

As to the potential advantage of the ability to distinguish light from dark, there are lots of possibilities. Plants can do it, for example. They have several different photoreceptors (besides chlorophyll) that provide signals to guide their growth and development. Even some fungi have light-dependent circadian rhythms. For many animals, the sudden appearance of a shadow provides a stimulus to hide, because there might be a predator. It's safer to hide than not to.

There is another distinct advantage for blind fish not to be able to see which may be able to answer Titan's question. There are many predator fish, like anglerfish, who have lures that mimic the appearance and behavior of a possible food source. Fish with eyes are attracted to the false lure and are eaten. Fish without eyes would not be attracted to it.

[perfessor]

so can we be friends or not? i would like to write more but i really have to go.

Hello fire_of_Jesus! I haven't been around a lot lately - I seem to come and go. I think you will find that we can all be friends here, even when we disagree on some things. So you will always be welcome. 8)

So visit when you can, and don't be afraid to ask questions and offer your opinions.

[De Maria]

This concept falls apart when one understands that if God used evolution to form man He could have easily said that from the animals He formed man.

There are many things God could easily have said. He could have said that He was a Trinity of persons, one God in three divine persons. Yet He didn't. He allowed the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into that truth, but it was not directly revealed in Scripture.

God could also have revealed the last day. We don't know that even now. He could have told the Jews that Jesus Christ would have been born of Mary and exactly when and where, but He didn't.

Now here is what God did say,

Genesis 1:24: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

So God created animals from the earth.

Genesis 2:7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,

And then God made man from the dust of the ground.

This can easily be deduced as God guiding the evolution of man.

These people may not have understood quantum physics...but the concept of evolution isn't all that difficult especially if explained to them by God.

Are these the same people who created a golden calf and worshipped it after they had seen the marvels of God?

Exodus 32:1
[ The Golden Calf ] When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [ Or a god ; also in verses 23 and 31 ] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

But the Word of God didn't put it that way.

Because God does not succumb to human whim. God's word is truth and truth is true whether you believe it or not.

The Word of God tells us that from the dust the Lord God formed man...not from an animal.

See above.

Then the Word of God tells us that from Adams rib, Eve was formed which certainly isn't anything close to evolution.

No one has ever claimed (to my knowledge) that woman evolved from man.

Now all of a sudden "infallible" isn't such a ridiculous word after all.

The Word of God in Scripture is inerrant. That is, there is no error in Scripture. Can't say the same for some people's interpretations of it however.

Sincerely,

De Maria