Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

[GoodAttention]

Failure to respond. . . It is not the fault of academic education when from grammar school to the universities the scientific cosmology, history of our earth, solar system and life including the sciences of evolution are taught.

No what people take priority over what is taught in the classroom with what is taught in the church. You know, "The Bible told me so."

Yes, my point being that it is their constitutional right to do so.

When education isn't seen as a right, and the government doesn't want to invest in it, a person can be easily influenced.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, my point being that it is their constitutional right to do so.

Not a valid point. The Constitutional right to believe what people want to believe is not remotely the issue here.

When education isn't seen as a right, and the government doesn't want to invest in it, a person can be easily influenced.

The governments has invested heavily in education. The sciences are being taught uniformly in all public schools and universities in the Western world The problem remains, which you have not responded to . . .

It is not the fault of academic education when from grammar school to the universities the scientific cosmology, history of our earth, solar system and life including the sciences of evolution are taught.

Freedom of speech and expression allows private religious schools and churches to teach anti-science religious agendas,

No what people take priority over what is taught in the classroom with what is taught in the church. You know, "The Bible told me so."

 

[GoodAttention]

Not a valid point. The Constitutional right to believe what people want to believe is not remotely the issue here.

I'm talking about the US specifically, and I don't think you understand how Americans see their constitution.

Religion was an extremely important part of US history, look at how and why the state of Utah was established for example.

The governments has invested heavily in education. The sciences are being taught uniformly in all public schools and universities in the Western world The problem remains, which you have not responded to . . .

It is not the fault of academic education when from grammar school to the universities the scientific cosmology, history of our earth, solar system and life including the sciences of evolution are taught.

Investment in education doesn't only mean more access and higher standards, but also support for a system that encourages critical thinking. I believe this is lacking in the US.

Freedom of speech and expression allows private religious schools and churches to teach anti-science religious agendas,

No what people take priority over what is taught in the classroom with what is taught in the church. You know, "The Bible told me so."

I think to discuss this correctly we need to understand the demographics of the people who believe the Sun orbits the Earth.

 

[wellwisher]

Here's the first sentence of the Bible:

(The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition was published in 2019. The organization that holds the copyright on that version is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it represents the orthodox Christian interpretation in the United States.)
The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. There is no major Christian sect today that believes that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says:

So the Catholic Church believes the exact opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The same is true of the other major Christian sects.

Here's what the Bible says happened on Day 2:

Note that the above passage says that there are waters above the dome. Why would there be waters above the Earth's sky? Answer: Because the author of this *Staff Edit* believed that the universe is a giant ocean of water. And why would anyone believe such a thing? The fact is that there were many people throughout the ancient world who ardently believed exactly that-- and we have clear evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites were in direct contact with them. For example the Bible says that the Israelites were held captive in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have learned of the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Egypt. One of the several stories of the creation that was popular in ancient Egypt originated in the city of On. That narrative said that the universe began as an ocean of water, that a mound of fertile earth appeared and that the god Atum created himself and then engendered the gods Shu and Tefnut. And between the three of them they created everything else in the universe.
And there was the Babylonian captivity. In 597 BCE the Neo-Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judah and hauled off its elites to the city of Babylon to serve the empire. We know that at least some parts of the Bible were written in Babylon since Psalm 137 specifically states that it was written in the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates river. While there the Israelites would surely have heard the Enuma Elish-- the Babylonian myth of creation. That story said that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good water (i.e. fresh) from the bad water (i.e. salty).
As far as I am aware there are no modern Christians who actually believe that the universe is an ocean of water. And if there are I would have to ask: How exactly did the Apollo astronauts get to and from the Moon? Did they swim?

Note also that the Day 2 passage cited above says that the sky (i.e. the atmosphere) is dome shaped. Why would God have created a dome shaped atmosphere over a spherical Earth? Answer: He wouldn't have. He would only have created a dome-shaped atmosphere over a flat, disk-shaped Earth. And that's because the author of the *edit* believed that the Earth is a flat disk.
I know there are a few people who still believe that the Earth is flat, and yes I'm familiar with the lunacy advocated by The Flat Earth Society: The Flat Earth Society. But any flat earth model is easily disproved. In the "naive" flat Earth model the sun revolves around the Earth in a plane that is perpendicular to the plane of the Earth. But such a model makes no accounting of time zones, since observers anywhere on the Earth would see the sun rise and set at exactly the same time. As for the Flat Earth Society's model, the sun revolves in an orbit above and parallel to the plane of the Earth. In that model the sun would neither rise nor set.

There is not one substantive fact about the creation-- and evolution-- of the universe that the *edit* the Bible got right. Some Christians may disagree violently with that statement, but I don't think that even the most ardent defenders of the *edit* would agree with what the first sentence of the story actually says. So let's first agree as to the meaning of the very first sentence of the Bible and then we can talk about other aspects of the 13.7 billion year evolution of the universe. If we can't even agree on that then there's no point in trying to argue about the rest of the *edit*.

Science has shown that water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen; H2. Water is also the most abundant solid material in the universe; ice, from which stars can form. There is way more water above the sky; rest of the universe.

Although hydrogen is more common than water in the universe, the natural advantage of water for star formation, over hydrogen, is hydrogen tends to stay a gas and is too light to self collect via gravity. It can even escape the earth's gravity. Water vapor cannot escape but can self attach as clouds. Water also contains hydrogen for fusion and by being also ice/solid, and form hydrogen bonds for added attraction, water can clump and creates its own gravity.

The kicker is because water expands when it freezes, when gravity forms a large enough clump of ice and sufficient pressure is applied, the ice heats and as it melts to liquid water it shrinks by about 10%. This will happen first in the center of gravity and causes a collapse cascade that creates a fusion hammer effect in the core, that can light the star.

Water was very well designed for star and well as for life. There is way more water in space; above the sky than on the earth. That is quite amazing for a bunch of ancient hayseeds to know this without any modern science tools; revelations.

Another thing that appears misunderstood is when Genesis talks about the days of creation, which day are they talking about? If the earth formed on day two, then what day was used for day 1, since the earth day had not yet been invented? The question is how long is a God day and does that equate with science?

For example, if you assume the Big Bang theory, and the initial singularity; primordial atom, where all the mass and energy of the universe is in a point, according to Einstein and General Relativity there would be a huge time dilation effect. If you were God, minutes in your references close to the BB could be millions of years viewed from the earth. It is possible 13.7 billion years in our earth reference; age of the universe from earth reference was 7 God days based on relativity and time dilation. We are talking about God, right!

Our material universe exists in space-time, where space and time are connected and act like two people in a three legged race. Say we were to separate space-time into separated space and separated time so each can act independent of the other. This is like taking away the tether of the three legged race. Both variables; runners, now have more freedom and capability. If one could move in space apart from time, you could be omnipresent. It is because of space-time being connected do we have the limitation of the speed of light. But moving in space, where time is not active; clock is stopped, allows you to be anywhere and everywhere in zero time. This is a classic attribute of God.

If we used God time, it may be similar to time spent but not connected to space. One way to visualize this is creating a blue print or plan; brooding over the deep, before you start construction in space-time. You do all the planning of the construction project, while never leaving the office. You are not yet moving resources in space. Once you hand over the plan to the construction foremen, then materials are ordered and they arrive via space-time and then the building spreads out into space-time, which may take months or years. The universe comes together based on a plan. Omniscience is easier to do if you made the plan in advance before you hit play. This is why inventors seem to be the experts.

 

[GoodAttention]

Science has shown that water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen; H2. Water is also the most abundant solid material in the universe; ice, from which stars can form. There is way more water above the sky; rest of the universe.

Although hydrogen is more common than water in the universe, the natural advantage of water for star formation, over hydrogen, is hydrogen tends to stay a gas and is too light to self collect via gravity. It can even escape the earth's gravity. Water vapor cannot escape but can self attach as clouds. Water also contains hydrogen for fusion and by being also ice/solid, and form hydrogen bonds for added attraction, water can clump and creates its own gravity.

The kicker is because water expands when it freezes, when gravity forms a large enough clump of ice and sufficient pressure is applied, the ice heats and as it melts to liquid water it shrinks by about 10%. This will happen first in the center of gravity and causes a collapse cascade that creates a fusion hammer effect in the core, that can light the star.

Water was very well designed for star and well as for life. There is way more water in space; above the sky than on the earth. That is quite amazing for a bunch of ancient hayseeds to know this without any modern science tools; revelations.

Another thing that appears misunderstood is when Genesis talks about the days of creation, which day are they talking about? If the earth formed on day two, then what day was used for day 1, since the earth day had not yet been invented? The question is how long is a God day and does that equate with science?

For example, if you assume the Big Bang theory, and the initial singularity; primordial atom, where all the mass and energy of the universe is in a point, according to Einstein and General Relativity there would be a huge time dilation effect. If you were God, minutes in your references close to the BB could be millions of years viewed from the earth. It is possible 13.7 billion years in our earth reference; age of the universe from earth reference was 7 God days based on relativity and time dilation. We are talking about God, right!

Our material universe exists in space-time, where space and time are connected and act like two people in a three legged race. Say we were to separate space-time into separated space and separated time so each can act independent of the other. This is like taking away the tether of the three legged race. Both variables; runners, now have more freedom and capability. If one could move in space apart from time, you could be omnipresent. It is because of space-time being connected do we have the limitation of the speed of light. But moving in space, where time is not active; clock is stopped, allows you to be anywhere and everywhere in zero time. This is a classic attribute of God.

If we used God time, it may be similar to time spent but not connected to space. One way to visualize this is creating a blue print or plan; brooding over the deep, before you start construction in space-time. You do all the planning of the construction project, while never leaving the office. You are not yet moving resources in space. Once you hand over the plan to the construction foremen, then materials are ordered and they arrive via space-time and then the building spreads out into space-time, which may take months or years. The universe comes together based on a plan. Omniscience is easier to do if you made the plan in advance before you hit play. This is why inventors seem to be the experts.

Stars become more "watery" (technically more oxygen) by fusing hydrogen and helium through the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle and then the triple alpha process, emitting light as they do.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Astrophile]

Science has shown that water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen; H2. Water is also the most abundant solid material in the universe; ice, from which stars can form. There is way more water above the sky; rest of the universe.

Although hydrogen is more common than water in the universe, the natural advantage of water for star formation, over hydrogen, is hydrogen tends to stay a gas and is too light to self collect via gravity. It can even escape the earth's gravity. Water vapor cannot escape but can self attach as clouds. Water also contains hydrogen for fusion and by being also ice/solid, and form hydrogen bonds for added attraction, water can clump and creates its own gravity.

The kicker is because water expands when it freezes, when gravity forms a large enough clump of ice and sufficient pressure is applied, the ice heats and as it melts to liquid water it shrinks by about 10%. This will happen first in the center of gravity and causes a collapse cascade that creates a fusion hammer effect in the core, that can light the star.

Water was very well designed for star and well as for life. There is way more water in space; above the sky than on the earth. That is quite amazing for a bunch of ancient hayseeds to know this without any modern science tools; revelations.

This is all complete nonsense. About a hundred years ago, Sir James Jeans calculated the properties of a gaseous mass (an interstellar cloud) that would contract under its own gravity to form a star or a cluster of stars. This 'Jeans mass' depends on the temperature and on the number density and the molecular weight of the atoms or molecules forming the cloud, not on the presence of ice. The abundance of hydrogen molecules in interstellar clouds is enormously greater than the abundance of water molecules. Hydrogen can escape the Earth's gravity, but it cannot escape the gravity of Jupiter or the Sun.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Earth is an oblate spheroid. The Earth's atmosphere is a 6200 mile thick shell shaped layer that envelops the Earth. I see no way that the Earth's atmosphere can be described as a dome. But the Hebrew word that is rendered as "firmament" in older translations of the Bible really means "dome," because the author of the creation story believed that the Earth is a flat disc.

Unfortunately you have not proved your contention. I use the word unfortunately because there is no real backup for your assertion.

 

[YoursTrue]

See post #133 and 139. The beliefs of Christians is unfortunately tragically variable without the guidance of science.

If something was described in ancient terms it does not make the Bible untrue.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm talking about the US specifically, and I don't think you understand how Americans see their constitution.

I understand completely not relevant to the thread topis.

Religion was an extremely important part of US history, look at how and why the state of Utah was established for example.

True, but that does not negate the fact that many churches teach an anti-science agenda.

Investment in education doesn't only mean more access and higher standards, but also support for a system that encourages critical thinking. I believe this is lacking in the US.

I believe the elephant in the room is the lack of critical thinking in many churches that teach an anti science agenda. Actually critical think is very much a part of the public education system and the foundation of academic universities. The Methodological Naturalism of science and the academic standards of all academic secular universities is based on critical thinking,

Nonetheless you extremely deviating from the topic of the thread. Let's deal with the elephants in the room

I think to discuss this correctly we need to understand the demographics of the people who believe the Sun orbits the Earth.

The demographics of the people that believe the Sun orbits the earth is religious belief based on what the churches teach and the plain literal reading of the Bible.

I can understand the Christian church fathers reading Genesis creation literally, but what do you understand of Rabbinic Judaism and the Oral Torah?

Judaism evolved with the advent of Reform Judaism beginning in 19th century Germany and is becoming dominant in Judaism today. Reform Judaism does not consider the Pentateuch literal history Before this the Torah was accepted as literal history Though even today Orthodox and the more Conservative Judaism does not emphacize a literal history of the Torah, but just consider it as is in traditional ritual and Midrash commentary.

Reform Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reform Judaism, also known as Liberal Judaism or Progressive Judaism, is a major Jewish denomination that emphasizes the evolving nature of Judaism, the superiority of its ethical aspects to its ceremonial ones, and belief in a continuous revelation which is closely intertwined with human reason and not limited to the Theophany at Mount Sinai. A highly liberal strand of Judaism, it is characterized by little stress on ritual and personal observance, regarding Jewish law as non-binding and the individual Jew as autonomous, and by a great openness to external influences and progressive values.

The following represents the contemporary beliefs of most Jews,

How Literally Do Jews Take the Hebrew Bible?

A major tenet of rabbinic Judaism is that the Bible is not to be taken literally. But of course that’s not the whole story.

mosaicmagazine.com

Taking the Bible literally is, as everyone knows, the hallmark of a religious fundamentalist. Of course, terms such as “literalism” and certainly “fundamentalism” have their origins in certain debates within American Protestantism, but that doesn’t stop people from applying them to Orthodox Judaism. Such usage has always bemused me, since a major tenet of rabbinic Judaism is that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Ancient and early medieval rabbis quite consciously saw this as what distinguished them from rival Jewish sects.

That might surprise some readers, but one need not know much about Judaism to know that it is true. Two examples will suffice: the Talmud and other contemporary works insist that the lex talionis—“an eye, for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, . . .”—refers to monetary compensation. Nobody’s eye should be gouged out; rather, like American courts today, rabbinic judges were supposed to assess the cost to the plaintiff of the injury through a set of formulas and compel the tortfeasor to pay accordingly.

A second example is the biblical injunction, “Thou shalt not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” Straightforward though it sounds, the rabbis take this to prohibit any consumption of meat and milk together (even if they come from different species, let alone unrelated animals), to mandate the use of separate dishes for meat and dairy, and so forth. This is hardly the sort of reading that liberal Protestant theologians who reject literalism would come up with, but it is by no means a literal interpretation. When it comes to more arcane cases of sacrificial ritual, the talmudic rabbis are quite explicit that their readings differ from the more literal interpretations of the Sadducees—and record intense strife over these issues.

 

[shunyadragon]

If something was described in ancient terms it does not make the Bible untrue.

The use of ancient terms is not the issue. The various translations of the Pentateuch take into consideration ancient terms. If you wish to understand the ancient terms in the original language read the Hebrew Torah. It is a fact that the Pentateuch particularly the Genesis account and the Noah Flood is based on ancient mythology and created history after 600 BCE without provenance or original writings without the benefit of contemporary science. The Pentateuch is in contradiction with the actual historical, archeological and scientific objective evidence.

Your anti-science agenda is based on an incoherent literal interpretation of these ancient contradictory text.

 

[YoursTrue]

The use of ancient terms is not the issue. The various translations of the Pentateuch take into consideration ancient terms. If you wish to understand the ancient terms in the original language read the Hebrew Torah. It is a fact that the Pentateuch particularly the Genesis account and the Noah Flood is based on ancient mythology and created history after 600 BCE without provenance or original writings without the benefit of contemporary science. The Pentateuch is in contradiction with the actual historical, archeological and scientific objective evidence.

Your anti-science agenda is based on an incoherent literal interpretation of these ancient contradictory text.

Have a good day.

 

[DavidSMoore]

So what you are saying is, Christian beliefs about the Earth were wrong because they interpreted a translated version of Genesis literally?

Institute for Creation Research:

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8 - 11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.
(Foundational Principles)

Presbyterian Church:

Q. 15. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of six days, and all very good.
(https://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/LargerCatechismwithScriptureProofs1.pdf, pg. 164)

Liberty University:

We affirm that all things were created by God. Angels were created as ministering agents, though some, under the leadership of Satan, fell from their sinless state to become agents of evil. The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth. Human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God, as either biologically male or female from the womb. As reasoning moral agents, they are responsible under God for understanding and governing themselves and the world.
(Doctrinal Position | About Liberty | Liberty University)

So yes, there are indeed people who call themselves Christians who interpret the biblical story of the creation absolutely literally. In 1999 the Presbyterian Church put together a special commission of theologians who were charged with determining whether the story of the creation was absolutely true, in light of all that had been learned from science over the previous 500 years. They concluded that yes, indeed, it is completely true, exactly as written. They only thing they couldn't agree on is the length of a day.

There are also other groups of Christians who believe the opposite of what the biblical story actually says. The Catholic church is a great example of that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about religion and science:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements … for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”
(Catholic Catechism, 283)

The phrase "development of life-forms" sounds very much like an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. And yet nothing could be more out of sync with the biblical creation story than that.

Another key issue concerns the very first paragraph of the Bible. As I argued previously, that paragraph makes it clear that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting material substances of the Earth and the waters. But here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about that:

We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”:
If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.
(Catholic Catechism, 296)

That's the opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says. Here's another example:

Lutheran Augsburg Confession:

Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
(Article I. Of God.)

Notice also that in its statement of faith, cited above, the Presbyterian church affirms a belief in the "creation from nothing" doctrine. That's one of the most glaring examples of a group that claims to believe that the Bible's creation story is absolutely true while at the same time affirming the exact opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says.

So what do Christians as a group actually believe about the creation of the world? It seems most closely to approximate a smorgasbord. You choose what passages you like in the Bible and you emphasize those; and you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your personal beliefs-- all while maintaining that the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely, totally, completely, utterly, 100% perfectly true.

 

[Audie]

Institute for Creation Research:


Presbyterian Church:


Liberty University:



So yes, there are indeed people who call themselves Christians who interpret the biblical story of the creation absolutely literally. In 1999 the Presbyterian Church put together a special commission of theologians who were charged with determining whether the story of the creation was absolutely true, in light of all that had been learned from science over the previous 500 years. They concluded that yes, indeed, it is completely true, exactly as written. They only thing they couldn't agree on is the length of a day.

There are also other groups of Christians who believe the opposite of what the biblical story actually says. The Catholic church is a great example of that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about religion and science:



The phrase "development of life-forms" sounds very much like an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. And yet nothing could be more out of sync with the biblical creation story than that.

Another key issue concerns the very first paragraph of the Bible. As I argued previously, that paragraph makes it clear that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting material substances of the Earth and the waters. But here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about that:



That's the opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says. Here's another example:

Lutheran Augsburg Confession:


Notice also that in its statement of faith, cited above, the Presbyterian church affirms a belief in the "creation from nothing" doctrine. That's one of the most glaring examples of a group that claims to believe that the Bible's creation story is absolutely true while at the same time affirming the exact opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says.

So what do Christians as a group actually believe about the creation of the world? It seems most closely to approximate a smorgasbord. You choose what passages you like in the Bible and you emphasize those; and you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your personal beliefs-- all while maintaining that the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely, totally, completely, utterly, 100% perfectly true.

We understand all too well that there are
such people.

And that it is entirely impossible for an educated person of integrity to hold to such as ICR beliefs.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Water was very well designed for star and well as for life. There is way more water in space; above the sky than on the earth. That is quite amazing for a bunch of ancient hayseeds to know this without any modern science tools; revelations.

I don't get where you're going with this. According to the biblical story, God separated the waters above from the waters below on Day 2. But the stars didn't exist until Day 4. Yes, I understand that oxygen is one of the elements that have been produced in the cores of stars, but any water that might have resulted from such star production would not have been available to God for his act of the separation of the waters on Day 2.

Another thing that appears misunderstood is when Genesis talks about the days of creation, which day are they talking about? If the earth formed on day two, then what day was used for day 1, since the earth day had not yet been invented?

Huh? The substance of the Earth-- that is, the chaos, pre-existed before God began the act of creation on Day 1 by saying "Let there be light." Here's the first sentence of the Bible again, for reference:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1, NRSVue)

The Earth was chaos when God began his act of creation, and God fashioned its material substances into the complex world we home.

The question is how long is a God day and does that equate with science?

Uh, not really. Here's what the Bible has to say about Day 1:

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:5, NRSVue)

So the days of the creation story are bounded by earthly evenings and mornings. That is, they are directly related to the day/night cycles of planet Earth. They are not "God days."

 

[GoodAttention]

Institute for Creation Research:


Presbyterian Church:


Liberty University:



So yes, there are indeed people who call themselves Christians who interpret the biblical story of the creation absolutely literally. In 1999 the Presbyterian Church put together a special commission of theologians who were charged with determining whether the story of the creation was absolutely true, in light of all that had been learned from science over the previous 500 years. They concluded that yes, indeed, it is completely true, exactly as written. They only thing they couldn't agree on is the length of a day.

There are also other groups of Christians who believe the opposite of what the biblical story actually says. The Catholic church is a great example of that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about religion and science:



The phrase "development of life-forms" sounds very much like an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. And yet nothing could be more out of sync with the biblical creation story than that.

Another key issue concerns the very first paragraph of the Bible. As I argued previously, that paragraph makes it clear that God fashioned the universe from the preexisting material substances of the Earth and the waters. But here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say about that:



That's the opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says. Here's another example:

Lutheran Augsburg Confession:


Notice also that in its statement of faith, cited above, the Presbyterian church affirms a belief in the "creation from nothing" doctrine. That's one of the most glaring examples of a group that claims to believe that the Bible's creation story is absolutely true while at the same time affirming the exact opposite of what the very first paragraph of the Bible actually says.

So what do Christians as a group actually believe about the creation of the world? It seems most closely to approximate a smorgasbord. You choose what passages you like in the Bible and you emphasize those; and you ignore anything that doesn't conform to your personal beliefs-- all while maintaining that the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely, totally, completely, utterly, 100% perfectly true.

I find this interesting because you don't really hear about Jewish people believing the scriptures as literally as Christians do.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find this interesting because you don't really hear about Jewish people believing the scriptures as literally as Christians do.

Since the mid 18 century with the rise of the Reform Movement in Judaism, by far most Jews do not believe in a literal Genesis of the Pentateuch. Even among the Conservative Orthodox the question of a literal Genesis up through the Noah Flood is not openly supported. It is simply dealt with as scripture as is traditionally.

Actually the mid 19th begins the evolution of moderate Christian Protestant beliefs that Genesis Creation was not literal, choose view the science best described the history of the universe and the evolution of life. The modern view of the Roman Church (RCC) evolve to accept the scientific explanation of evolution and cosmology.

 

[GoodAttention]

Since the mid 18 century with the rise of the Reform Movement in Judaism, by far most Jews do not believe in a literal Genesis of the Pentateuch. Even among the Conservative Orthodox the question of a literal Genesis up through the Noah Flood is not openly supported. It is simply dealt with as scripture as is traditionally.

Actually the mid 19th begins the evolution of moderate Christian Protestant beliefs that Genesis Creation was not literal, choose view the science best described the history of the universe and the evolution of life. The modern view of the Roman Church (RCC) evolve to accept the scientific explanation of evolution and cosmology.

So at what point did the Protestant belief, from which I understand all the current churches in the US come from, go back to a literal reading instead of science?

Or I suppose you would have those fringe groups that protested against the Catholic church but wanted to keep the literal readings.

 

[Pogo]

So at what point did the Protestant belief, from which I understand all the current churches in the US come from, go back to a literal reading instead of science?

Or I suppose you would have those fringe groups that protested against the Catholic church but wanted to keep the literal readings.

The belief in Genesis as literal is actually a recent invention and largely an outgrowth of the seventh day adventists in the early 1900s and is by any means all Protestants.

History of creationism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

The belief in Genesis as literal is actually a recent invention and largely an outgrowth of the seventh day adventists in the early 1900s and is by any means all Protestants.

History of creationism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is, of course, a problem with the use of the word day in reference to whether it is a 24-hour period, or a time period with a beginning and an end. Geology itself tells us that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Thus many recognize that the word day used in the time of creating s not a 24 hour period. The real problem is that some refuse to give up the idea that evolution as portrayed by Darwin and others is far from a complete description. Far from it. This is not because scientists have not discovered all the details. Because it is beyond the scope of men to know/understand the ways of creation, such as the brain and memory. So while we (mankind) may understand anatomy they cannot duplicate it in a working situation.

 

[DavidSMoore]

The real problem is that some refuse to give up the idea that evolution as portrayed by Darwin and others is far from a complete description. Far from it. This is not because scientists have not discovered all the details. Because it is beyond the scope of men to know/understand the ways of creation, such as the brain and memory. So while we (mankind) may understand anatomy they cannot duplicate it in a working situation.

The scientific theory of evolution is a theory of the origin of species. It is not a theory of the origin of life. At present there is no scientific theory of the origin of life. There are scientific hypotheses about it, some of which are being actively investigated. But as of right now there is no such theory. (If you're puzzled by the distinction I've drawn between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, you might want to consider what I said about that in this post: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation)

Will there ever be a theory of the origin of life? I'd be willing to bet money on it, but I think it's likely to take many more decades. I, for one, would want to see evidence of life on another planet, or moon, before I'd be willing to say that we have a comprehensive understanding about the mechanisms that give rise to life. Specifically I'd want to see evidence for the inevitability of life.

So given that, what is your alternative narrative for the origin of species?