Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Awaiting the Fifth.


the difference between belief and acceptance of the theory of evolution, in my view, comes down to evidence.

belief can be had regardless of evidence. acceptance, it seems, is predicated on accepting the evidence presented.

this is, perhaps, where we could get into the discussion of what constitutes "justified knowledge". i would posit that the Scientific Method allows us to have justified knowledge whereas belief does not.

by the by, Brian, the Modern Synthesis does describe mechanisms which account for the change in allele frequencies in a population. whether or not it is correct, is a different concern, wouldn't you agree?

metta,

~v

 

[Plaidback]

i believe god is energy and energy is everything and everyone.
The whole universe is energy.

that is not a belief, it is the truth

I believe in evolution, mainly because it is right before our eyes.
Everything - the entire universe and our earth as well as man made objects
are evolving every second of the day.

Evolution is process applicable to life form, man made object can develop, and change, they do not evolve.

And because everything comes from energy or god, that means god is evolving as well. This also means that god is our creator through evolution.

God is Energy, remember, Energy made of truth and love,( elements, spirits,
and dimensions) something that is Constant, impossible to change, impossible to evolve.
It just is, forever. When it comes to Us, God is Life itself, existance.Our Soul.

Every life depends on truth and love, truth and love does not depend on Life, truth and love was here before life, truth and love created life.

Genesis is not to be taken literally, but metaphorically.

Genesis is Prophecy, and the only way to understand prophecy is to find truth
in it.

 

[hammer]

Evolution here!

 

[Silverbackman]

After all the talk recently about Creation and Evolution, I was curious to find out just how many of our CR brethren believe in Evolution and how many in a Genesis style creation.

Please note that this is in no way limited to the Christian idea of Creation, any version of a creation myth is applicable.

I vote evolution.

We have had this before but oh well.

I cannot vote because I believe in both evolution and creation. God created the universe billions of years ago and evolution did the rest. So in other words God used evolution to create the universe.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I voted for evolution. While I understand that the details of the mechanisms involved have not been fully discovered and understood, I am confident that evolution occurred.

I also feel the need to reiterate Brian's statement that evolutionary theory really does not deal with how life came to be in the first place. As I understand it, biological evolution began to happen after life came into being.

And, I need to take issue with those who want to allow evolution for all other life forms, but not for humans. The structure of DNA is shared by all life forms on the Earth. I think that is all the evidence that is necessary to show that all life forms came out of the same process. Additionally, it is scientific fact that the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is somewhere between 93 percent and 97 percent the same (depending on which source you read). That speaks powerfully to the idea that chimpanzees and humans have a shared ancestor.

Does this mean that I think there is no room for the existence of God or gods? Not at all.

Does it mean that I have problems with the Genesis accounts of how things came into being? You bet, especially since there are two different and mutually exclusive accounts within the first two chapters of the book and I don't buy the idea that one is a spiritual account of creation and the other is a physical account of creation, as the difference has been explained to me.

 

[Silverbackman]

I think the Genesis creation story is nothing more than a made up myth. I rather focus on the teachings of the prophets, because only those have been unchanged.

 

[Quahom1]

"Genetic drift, may be between 2-7% between Chimpanzees and Humans, however the genetic drift between all mankind is no more that 0.03%. The most drastic of the differences is the division between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of humanity. Thus it is considered that modern humans originated in Africa and that the population from which the rest of humanity descended left Africa somewhat less than 300,000 years ago, ultimately replacing earlier humans, like the Pithecanthropines (Homo erectus, like Peking Man, etc.), who had also evolved in Africa but left many thousands of years earlier."

"Part of this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in Africa, around 200,000 years ago, from whom every living human being is now descended. This does not mean that there were not other human females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too -- we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human genetic material is contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a cell outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is contained). Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of mitochrondiral DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another interesting feature of the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern population across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus, curiously, Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than to Polynesians. Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic wherewithal to make that adaptation."

"The March 29, 1999, Newsweek reports (p. 72) that population geneticist Jody Hey and anthropologist Eugene Harris, of Rutgers University, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that, using DNA techniques again, the African population split from the non-African about 189,000 years ago. The article presents this as well before the emergence of "modern" Homo sapiens and somewhat surprising, but it actually seems fairly consistent with the numbers presented above. If Home sapiens goes back 300,000 years and "Eve" is around 200,000 years ago, then it is not beyond the bounds of crediblity that we could get the basic split in the populations not too long after that. The margin of error is also probably pretty large."
(Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.)

From this article, much is gleaned, and fuel for the fire of evolution and creation is added. First off, man is not that old, in fact the youngest form of life to join planet earth. Second, it appears that man does have a common mother, based on micro biological evidence. We seem to all share traits coming from a single female. However, there is also evidence that before man (that is the garden of eden, man), there were prototypes, that did not make it, and they went back at least 100,000 years before the arrival of modern man (from a single mother). Now, some carry the traits of protoman, but all of us carry traits from a single modern man. Also note that Chimpanzees do not carry any of those unique markers that we all carry.

There is a huge chasm between a .03% varience in genetic drift and a 2-7% varience.

Seems to me that one could argue that evolution has occured all along, however, something happened about 189,000 years ago that set man apart from all other life forms, and that it was significant enough to not only cause a physical isolation from the rest of the animal kingdom, but isolation in every other way as well.

Genetic drift cannot be over come (by today's technology) to breed human with Chimp, but neither can it be over come to breed Chimp with Gorilla (Chimps are closer genetically to man than they are to Gorillas).

Indeed, as far as physical attributes, man has more in common with equines, and that is an impossible cross breed potential (unless one believes in centaurs).

Perhaps, 200 millenia ago sentience finally dawned in Man, and God smiled and said "Good morning, I've been waiting for you to awaken. We've got lots to do..."

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[Master]

God is Energy, remember, Energy made of truth and love,( elements, spirits,
and dimensions) something that is Constant, impossible to change, impossible to evolve.
It just is, forever. When it comes to Us, God is Life itself, existance.Our Soul.

Interesting comment Plaidback.
Does this mean that time and distance is an illusion?

And if this is so then that means that there is no evolution. It also means there is no creation. It means that there just is. Do you agree?

 

[Plaidback]

I think the Genesis creation story is nothing more than a made up myth. I rather focus on the teachings of the prophets, because only those have been unchanged.

Prophecy is story that is going to happen, prediction about event, that is going to take place in exact time in future. Prophet, inspired by God (truth & love),
wrote that Vision down, created a book, and those books by various Prophets
are put into One called Torah. True enough, it was given to Jews, but it
Concern entire Humanity, not like Jews believe, only Jews.
To put things in todays perspective, those Jewish Prophets were storytellers,
just like we have Directors and Actors today. And some have told Us same stories Prophets did, but in their way, inspired by same "Muse".
So Moses was Spielberg or Lucas of His time, giving us Truth, that have happend, and is still happening.
God is everything, including Science, so story about creation by Moses was just
Metaphoricaly presented Tale adjusted to fit Jewish mindframe of those days.
That's why Moses "spiced up" story about creation with " six " day of "God's"
work, to fit that into, work six days, and dedicate Saturday to God.
But, in real life God do not have "Days".
That is why is important to look @ Genesis as only book that have double
Standard. It is testimony about Beginning and the End of Human race as we know it.
If you have people today, that literaly believe in, Man being created from
Dirt, and woman having conversation with Snake, it's just proof that,
with brain they were given to work with, they couldn't jump to any other conclusion.
Genesis is metaphore about end of times, repeated in Revelation, in which
first human couple, rejected God's truth and excepted Belief instead.
For which, "punishment" was death.
Now humans have to reject Beliefs and recognize truth if they want to
exist forever, because we are in those days, when You will either Die, or
Exist forever ( which is not Life anymore ).
Six days are 6000 years, (in Our terms ),true enough, Man and woman did turned into "Dirt" (metaphoricaly) today, and is time to make that cross
from mortality into eternity.
First couple was flesh and blood when they were Eternal, so this flesh of ours
can also cross into eternity, because Our body is capable of producing
chemical that rejuvenate and stop aging of a Cell.
Meaning when The End happen, Older People that are going to cross into eternity will Phisicaly rejuvenate into shape they desire. And the last babies born will grow to desired Human form ( or what we used to call age )

So no, Genesis is not a Myth, Myth is Illusion, Genesis is Truth.

 

[Plaidback]

Interesting comment Plaidback.
Does this mean that time and distance is an illusion?

People are reluctant to accept God's truth, because of fear in loosing control over their life. Which is so childish. It is simply accepting the Truth,
that We Are Making Choices, behind which is God. We just walking the Path,
He created for Us, just like He created everything else. All we need is pure joy of
feeling His Love, inside Us, as Him being our Life.
That is why time is an Illusion, again we playing on God's turf, and God does not have time. We live in places that thanks to rotation of planet, giving us Day and Night, and we invented ( as most inteligent species ) " time measuring " devices.
Truth still is, we are born in one day, we live one day, and we die in same day.
Distance is not illusion, and it exist in Eternity, where measurements don't.
Balance, simmetry, and distance are spiritual dimensions, just like they are
Mathematical. Whenever you feel what Me or anybody else feel, there is no
spiritual Distance between Us.

And if this is so then that means that there is no evolution. It also means there is no creation. It means that there just is. Do you agree?

Evolution is reality, we can not deny that. It is clear to see how Human brain
evolved, and it is going to get into a full potential use also.With simple
thought process that will reveal your personal truth to you, about who you really are, you will get to a process similar to deleting all files you don't need on your computers hard drive. And speed of your thinking will increase, because your brain will be focused on future only, not past.
Creation must have happend, One way or another, first Human couple came to a scene, followed by first birth. How, when, who cares .

 

[truthseeker]

"Genetic drift, may be between 2-7% between Chimpanzees and Humans, however the genetic drift between all mankind is no more that 0.03%. The most drastic of the differences is the division between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of humanity. Thus it is considered that modern humans originated in Africa and that the population from which the rest of humanity descended left Africa somewhat less than 300,000 years ago, ultimately replacing earlier humans, like the Pithecanthropines (Homo erectus, like Peking Man, etc.), who had also evolved in Africa but left many thousands of years earlier."

"Part of this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in Africa, around 200,000 years ago, from whom every living human being is now descended. This does not mean that there were not other human females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too -- we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human genetic material is contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a cell outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is contained). Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of mitochrondiral DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another interesting feature of the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern population across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus, curiously, Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than to Polynesians. Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic wherewithal to make that adaptation."

"The March 29, 1999, Newsweek reports (p. 72) that population geneticist Jody Hey and anthropologist Eugene Harris, of Rutgers University, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that, using DNA techniques again, the African population split from the non-African about 189,000 years ago. The article presents this as well before the emergence of "modern" Homo sapiens and somewhat surprising, but it actually seems fairly consistent with the numbers presented above. If Home sapiens goes back 300,000 years and "Eve" is around 200,000 years ago, then it is not beyond the bounds of crediblity that we could get the basic split in the populations not too long after that. The margin of error is also probably pretty large."
(Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.)

From this article, much is gleaned, and fuel for the fire of evolution and creation is added. First off, man is not that old, in fact the youngest form of life to join planet earth. Second, it appears that man does have a common mother, based on micro biological evidence. We seem to all share traits coming from a single female. However, there is also evidence that before man (that is the garden of eden, man), there were prototypes, that did not make it, and they went back at least 100,000 years before the arrival of modern man (from a single mother). Now, some carry the traits of protoman, but all of us carry traits from a single modern man. Also note that Chimpanzees do not carry any of those unique markers that we all carry.

There is a huge chasm between a .03% varience in genetic drift and a 2-7% varience.

Seems to me that one could argue that evolution has occured all along, however, something happened about 189,000 years ago that set man apart from all other life forms, and that it was significant enough to not only cause a physical isolation from the rest of the animal kingdom, but isolation in every other way as well.

Genetic drift cannot be over come (by today's technology) to breed human with Chimp, but neither can it be over come to breed Chimp with Gorilla (Chimps are closer genetically to man than they are to Gorillas).

Indeed, as far as physical attributes, man has more in common with equines, and that is an impossible cross breed potential (unless one believes in centaurs).

Perhaps, 200 millenia ago sentience finally dawned in Man, and God smiled and said "Good morning, I've been waiting for you to awaken. We've got lots to do..."

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Beautiful thoughts, Quahom.

And as for you, Bandit My Dear...

I didn't say that I don't believe the Genesis story. I just think it is a bit inadequate. If Genesis was to go about explaining the whole thing, well then the length of the entire Bible would be the story of the activities of those six days. In a sense, it is, but like I said I just don't think God rounded up the clay in the simple way that Genesis states it. I think it was meant in the way that man was made from the same stuff that everything else was made from. Now as Quahom's post states, something happened at some point that separated man from the other living beings. That was the breath of life that God breathed into man's nostrils. That is the breath that gives man will and hope and discernment, among other things that separates us from other species of living beings. If you can recall, man was created after the seventh day.

And I do believe that man was before woman. And man existed long before the need to reproduce, which was the necessity for woman.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yep - the theory as it stands at present is incapable of describing specific mechanisms and processes of evolution.

The principle of evolution is different...

However, it's also worth reminding that evolution does not relate to the "creation" of life, but the development and diversity.

So perhaps the black and white answers that may seem immediately applicable, are in fact not...

I would agree. Science and Faith are co-equals to understanding Creation. They are our right and left eyes. If we blind one eye, does it improve our understanding? Of course not.

Evolution is a model, it is not a perfect model, nor is any model likely to acheive perfection in picturing creation.

As to Genesis - well, there are TWO creation stories there - but neither one is meant to be a scientific explanation of the creation. To demand that one accept it as so, is superstition. To demand that it is entirely false, is crass and destructive materialism.

To ignore either to adhere to ONE, is self-imposed ignorance at best.

Regards,

Scott

 

[Bandit]

And as for you, Bandit My Dear...

I didn't say that I don't believe the Genesis story. I just think it is a bit inadequate. If Genesis was to go about explaining the whole thing, well then the length of the entire Bible would be the story of the activities of those six days. In a sense, it is, but like I said I just don't think God rounded up the clay in the simple way that Genesis states it.
And I do believe that man was before woman. And man existed long before the need to reproduce, which was the necessity for woman.

so you mean it was not like a bunch of balls of colorful play dough with a rolling pin & cookie cutter that formed a bunch of different humans.
it is tough when science meets up with God & theories are still inadequate.
i know what you are saying my lovely Truthseeker & we are in agreement. i am just teasing with you.

 

[Silverbackman]

Why is it when we talk about evolution vs creationism we always bring the the creation story in Genesis? What about the creation story of Eastern Faiths? Namelly in the Rig Veda?

Oh wait, now I know why. Because the Rig Veda can go hand in hand with evolution, maybe because it is the TRUTH! At least the creation story of the Rig Veda does not have any superstition claims, nor does it try to solve anything that we ourselves need to find out for themselves.

Creation and evolution are BOTH right. End of story. Why couldn't God us evolution to sustain the universe once he created it billions of years ago?

 

[taijasi]

It always amazes me that when speaking of G_d starting things off (presumably with the Big Bang long, long ago), so many Christian/evolutionists - and perhaps others - assume that this means G_d cannot have been intimately involved with the process (of His mechanism, evolution) ... until the events we notice in the Bible, scattered here & there, but mostly occurring in the past few thousand years with the exception of the allegorical Garden of Eden. And why the latter should be taken literally by anyone is beyond me.

No offense is intended. If the only way this makes sense is to read the bible in its original plain-English version, then by all means, have at it! Why, though, doesn't it occur as common sense that the seven `Days' of Genesis are indeed meant symbolically ... and that questions like, "Were Adam and Eve actual human beings?" dissolve into absurdity in the light of recent scientific discoveries? (Again, these so-named figures are presented for a reason, but to decipher the meaning would require at least some cursory knowledge of the Adam Kadmon of the Jewish Kabbalists, and this is more effort than the average reader is willing to expend.)

The fact is, Eastern traditions have dealt with these sort of mysteries quite neatly for many thousands of years, certainly long before their more recent presentation in Western traditions. If the latter teachings are more popular to us here in the West, let us not overlook the fact that - as Silverbackman says - works such as the Rig Veda, Popul Vuh, Stanzas of Dzyan, et al have dealt with the Creation story quite succinctly. Students familiar with Edgar Cayce might find this article interesting (very relevant to this thread).

Clearly, if one consults these various works for parallels between the Eastern presentation and the much newer Western renditions s/he will find them, but to accentuate the differences and gloss over the similarities ... is a disservice to Those Who originated these various traditions to begin with.

If we only agree upon one thing (and even that may not occur), let us at least consider that there is but one Essential Truth ... with many, many Pontius Pilates to quibble with her (Truth's) Prophets and Defenders. Those who resist (fear) the Spirit of Ecumenism (Christ's Friend if ever he had one) are like those who would stand at the ocean and strike out at the infinitude of tributaries which reach her safe waters at long last. Pity the man who stands neck-deep against the current, defiant to the last of Christ's promise to bring all men unto Him ... if He be lifted up (which is to say, emulated!).
~-~-~-~-~

Again, why is it that when we approach this false-dichotomy of an issue, we use an obvious anthropomorphism, picture William Blake's Ancient of Days (wonderfully suggestive as this may be to Masons, et al), and go on to assume - with the Deists - that everything has literally run like clockwork until ... oh, a couple thousand years ago or so. Hmmm.

If you've never read the Flower Sermon, this will take about 15 seconds.

Is the Cosmos G_d's Flower?

andrew
​

 

[Silverbackman]

It always amazes me that when speaking of G_d starting things off (presumably with the Big Bang long, long ago), so many Christian/evolutionists - and perhaps others - assume that this means G_d cannot have been intimately involved with the process (of His mechanism, evolution) ... until the events we notice in the Bible, scattered here & there, but mostly occurring in the past few thousand years with the exception of the allegorical Garden of Eden. And why the latter should be taken literally by anyone is beyond me.

No offense is intended. If the only way this makes sense is to read the bible in its original plain-English version, then by all means, have at it! Why, though, doesn't it occur as common sense that the seven `Days' of Genesis are indeed meant symbolically ... and that questions like, "Were Adam and Eve actual human beings?" dissolve into absurdity in the light of recent scientific discoveries? (Again, these so-named figures are presented for a reason, but to decipher the meaning would require at least some cursory knowledge of the Adam Kadmon of the Jewish Kabbalists, and this is more effort than the average reader is willing to expend.)

The fact is, Eastern traditions have dealt with these sort of mysteries quite neatly for many thousands of years, certainly long before their more recent presentation in Western traditions. If the latter teachings are more popular to us here in the West, let us not overlook the fact that - as Silverbackman says - works such as the Rig Veda, Popul Vuh, Stanzas of Dzyan, et al have dealt with the Creation story quite succinctly. Students familiar with Edgar Cayce might find this article interesting (very relevant to this thread).

Clearly, if one consults these various works for parallels between the Eastern presentation and the much newer Western renditions s/he will find them, but to accentuate the differences and gloss over the similarities ... is a disservice to Those Who originated these various traditions to begin with.

If we only agree upon one thing (and even that may not occur), let us at least consider that there is but one Essential Truth ... with many, many Pontius Pilates to quibble with her (Truth's) Prophets and Defenders. Those who resist (fear) the Spirit of Ecumenism (Christ's Friend if ever he had one) are like those who would stand at the ocean and strike out at the infinitude of tributaries which reach her safe waters at long last. Pity the man who stands neck-deep against the current, defiant to the last of Christ's promise to bring all men unto Him ... if He be lifted up (which is to say, emulated!).
~-~-~-~-~

Again, why is it that when we approach this false-dichotomy of an issue, we use an obvious anthropomorphism, picture William Blake's Ancient of Days (wonderfully suggestive as this may be to Masons, et al), and go on to assume - with the Deists - that everything has literally run like clockwork until ... oh, a couple thousand years ago or so. Hmmm.

If you've never read the Flower Sermon, this will take about 15 seconds.

Is the Cosmos G_d's Flower?

andrew
​

Taijasi, I read that article about Edgar Cayce's creation article, and I'm impressed! Great article! To be honest it seems far more divine that the Genesis creation story. Although it mentions Judeo-Christianity mainly, most the concepts are Hindu concepts. The Brahman is very similar to the God in the article, so is reincarnation. I'm surpised it did not mentioned where it got most of its info from.

So was this Edgar Cayce start out as a Christian that developed different beliefs that make more sense (of course using Eastern Wisdom.

 

[Jaiket]

What strikes me as curious is this; evolution, specifically Darwinism, has obiterated all comers since conception and explains an incredible amount of data with minimal entities. Yet creationists attack it like it was pulled from the rear of an orangutang last week, brushed down, and pegged up as 'Science' with a capital 'S'.

To objectively examine the masses of evidence and state that the ToE is not the best explanation we have leaves me incredulous.

 

[Silverbackman]

What strikes me as curious is this; evolution, specifically Darwinism, has obiterated all comers since conception and explains an incredible amount of data with minimal entities. Yet creationists attack it like it was pulled from the rear of an orangutang last week, brushed down, and pegged up as 'Science' with a capital 'S'.

To objectively examine the masses of evidence and state that the ToE is not the best explanation we have leaves me incredulous.

It is, the problem is that creationist don't want to admit it. And by creationist I mean judeo-christo-islamic creationist. I can't believe anyone would believe such a primitive creation myth! I mean the Rig Veda's creation story at least makes a little more sense!

What is even more suprising is that many people believe the universe is 6,000 years old, when not only do evolutionists believe this is impossible but the cosmologist are even more stunned on how someone could believe such a metaphor of the beginning!

Was the universe created? Of course it was, by what and to what extent we don't. Could God have used evolution to create life? Of course he/she could have!

When people stop confusing myths for religion, then religion would be much better off. Follow the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, don't give a crap on whether the was born in a manger or whether the rainbow is really there because of a promise.

The new global religion if it ever comes should make sure they concentrate more on the teachings for religious ceremonies more than the stories. They stories are great but we need to distinguish stories from spirituality.

 

[E99]

Creation.

Evolution has a certain amount of back up to its theory but I tend to think of it as incomplete because of insufficient answers regarding abiogenesis, biological life from the formation of chemical molecules. Which is improbable if not impossible within the given amount of time that our universe has existed. Although many state that abiogenesis is not evolution, which is true to an extent, as the processes of progressive formation are different, abiogenesis still results in a biological functioning cell. They are intrinsically linked. In essence, evolution needs abiogenesis to be substantiated, as it is the base on which evolution is founded. Otherwise it is like saying that we believe that we know how the house has been built, but it is not built on a foundation.... Like Jesus's parable...A house built on sandy soil will eventually collapse in a storm. (Matthew 7:26, 27)



Genesis is clearly a basic account of creation. It was intended to be known as a real event. Why would God have Moses write a confusing tale ? All scripture comes from (inspired ) by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) and God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)
It is also believed that there were writings handed down to Moses from the pre-flood generations that gave a clearer account of the creation which have now been lost in time. . . This is based on the Dutch scholar Campegius Vitringa who made his conclusion upon the frequent occurrence in Genesis (ten times) of the expression (in KJ) "these are the generations of," and once "this is the book of the generations of." (Ge 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) In this expression the Hebrew word for "generations" is toh·le·dhohth´, and it is better rendered "histories" or "origins."
This theory is not wholey substantiated, but it does seem to point to the fact that Moses may have had written documentation of pre-flood existance and the creation. More than likely The account was transmitted orally, by written records and more importantly, by divine inspiration.



The full understanding of Genesis is a little lost once its taken from the original Hebrew wording. The Hebrews would have had a clearer understanding of the account. The confusion comes from the Hebrew language having around 30,000 words with varying and loose meanings, to our language with around 300,000 words that have more specific meaning with each word.
The word day (yohm) is a good example, meaning a 24 hour day when used in context with its surrounding words, or it can mean any period of time. It has to be defined by the verse it is in and sometimes verses well before or after it. Its debatable if the 'days' in genesis are 24 hours, or wether they mean undefined periods of time.
More specific is the concept that is bandied about that there is two creation accounts in Genesis etc. Here again the actual original Hebrew can help to bury this false idea about the so called duo creation account in Genesis.

​

 

[Silverbackman]

E99, it maybe seems like a great explanation but look at the creation myths of the Native Americans, Native Africans, Norse Creation Myth, ect. ect. It doesn't seem like such a big story when you look at the broader picture.

Exactly what do you mean by there is not enough time for evolution? The universe is around 15 billion years old! Evolutionists are not the ones who made this number, cosmologists did! 6,000 years is just too impossible, heck most civilizations date back further! Hinduism is about 6,000 year old, much older than Judaism.

I have heard that the words used to describe day could mean era, but then why did God use day and night? That clearly shows it cannot be eras! Unless the days and nights are much longer, this is a possibility.

The world however cannot be 6,000 years old, that is far too young for our universe. Evolutionists, Cosmologists, Zoologists and even Historians would strongly disagree with you. If Genesis has any validity, then it must be a metaphor more than anything !