So there was a big bang? So many evolutionist claim they never said that. For clarification can you explain to me please what the big bang was?
I think what some evolutionists are saying is that when they say the accept evolution in a biological sense, they are not making any statement regarding the big bang. The big bang is not part of evolution.
The big bang theory (in my understanding) says that at one time the universe was an 'infinitely dense and hot' point of matter and energy which very quickly expanded and over time cooled and became less dense. The 'space' of the universe has continued to expand, thinning out the matter and energy which eventually clustered into galaxies and stars. In general, the big bang theory does not say anything about what happened before the bang, and many scientists I think would say that it is impossible to know what happened before because the big bang event obliterated any information about what might have happened before, even if there was a before.
Micatala wrote:Sorry, this does not settle the question. The fact that someone quotes the creation story does not mean that they hold it as literally true, and even if they do, it says nothing about whether their understanding is the correct one or not. Using this logic, we should all believe in a flat earth as the center of the universe and a sky consisting of a solid dome because this is how people who quoted those passages in the past would have understood them.
Sender wrote:Come again? Paul on Mars hill used the creation story to evangellize. We all know who Paul is don't we? Sure we do.
I take it you are referring to Acts 17:22
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
I'm not sure how this is inconsistent with my view. I am still saying God created the universe and everything in it, I am just taking a different as to
how He accomplished this creation.
Also, even though I think it is open to question, let's assume Paul had a particular understanding of Genesis akin to your own. This still does not settle the question. We know that there are examples from scripture where the author very likely did not have a complete or accurate understanding of the words he actually wrote. For example, many of the Messianic psalms depict both the first and the second comings of Christ without distinguishing between them. These prophecies in general ignore the so-called 'church age' and imply that the 'glorious coming of Christ' will be at the same time as the initial coming.
Another example are the passages in the New Testament, some written by Paul himself, that imply the second coming will happen quite soon, within the lifetime of many of those who lived with Jesus.
My point would be that even if one is an 'inerrantist,' it does not follow that the interpretations that those in the past made,
even those who wrote parts of the Bible, were necessarily inerrant. Granted, Paul may have likely made a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis, based on scripture as well as the prevailing world-view of his time. He also very well may have believed scripture indicated a flat earth or at least an earth-centered universe. I don't see that we must assume Paul's interpretation is necessarily inerrant, even if we assume the Bible is inerrant in the usual current usage of that term.
Evolution - In the beginning NOTHING.
Creation - In the beginning God.
Chapter summary of evolution..."life arose from non living matter present on early earth".
Looks like polar opposites to me. Someone is wrong!
From my point of view, biological evolution does not address 'in the beginning' if by beginning we mean the creation of the whole universe. Biological evolution doesn't even take a position on the beginning of life per se. It does say that the nature of life on earth has changed a great deal over time, and that time includes many millions of years. Stricly speaking, evolution does not take a position on how the first life came to be. One possible scenario is God created by intentional intervention in the natural process of things a first life form, and that since that time, life has diversified and evolved to what we see today.
If by 'in the beginning' we are speaking of the first moments of the overall universe, then the Big Bang is one possible scenario, and one that is largely consistent with all the evidence we have. I'm not sure if this means the universe came from 'nothing.' I don't think cosmologists would necessarily describe it this way. They simply say 'we don't know how this first event occurred or where the matter and energy came from.' This is not at all 'opposite' of what the Bible says, and certainly allows the possibility that God did it.
Now, if one assume that God did not intervene to create life, we still do not have life 'from nothing' but would have life arising from non-life (the dust, as it were). Although I understand this creates problems for the literal interpretation of Genesis, it is not inconsistent with the idea of creation. In fact, Genesis does say "let the earth bring forth vegetation" and "let the waters teem with an abundance of living creatures" and "let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures". The language certainly allows the idea that the life arose
by what we would call now natural processes as part of God's creative actions.
I think part of the difficulty is that some make a dichotomy between 'natural processes' and 'God processes' that I do not think is necessary, and I do not think is dictated by the language of scripture. In my view, natural processes
are also God processes, as God is ultimately responsible for starting the universe off, both with respect to the matter and energy and with respect to the laws that govern their interactions.
[/quote]
