Theists - Do you ever get the feeling that creation stories...?

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!!

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!

I don't think that the biblical creation story sounds any more ridiculous than the one concocted by science. Both are pretty outlandish when you think about it...I imagine that a child (or anyone else with no prior knowledge of the topic) would find the biblical story far more believable than a similarly simplified story based on evolution theory.

Yes, there is "objective evidence" to support evolution...but NONE of that evidence is inconsistent with the biblical account of creation...UNLESS you add something to the account in the form of assumptions to allow you to answer questions like "when did God say let there be light"?...or, for that matter, any other question the biblical account clearly wasn't written to answer.

Show me where in the bible it states how long Adam (and later Eve) were in the garden before they were cast out...I can understand the mathematical calculation based on the genealogies in Genesis that points to 6,000 or so years ago as the time when Adam's life began...but only an assumption can allow you to attach that point to the moment he was created instead of to the day his mortal existence on earth began (the day he ate that fruit and was cast out of the garden)!

Another "missing link" in the biblical story is what was happening on the rest of this planet while God was working on Adam and Eve in the garden he created for them. Check out the Chapter 2 account sometime...it's pretty clear that after stating that the earth was pretty much covered with water (supported by the evidence we have!), the rest of the account focuses specifically on what was happening in the garden. It states that he placed all those plants and animals (and man) in that garden...and somewhere between that time, and the time Adam and Eve were thrown out of that garden, the earth obviously developed the capacity for supporting human life. Where exactly does it say in the supposedly "ridiculous" creation account that Adam and Eve still had the planet to themselves by the time they had to live outside that carefully controlled and protected environment God provided in the garden?

Sorry, I just don't see it...even if the biblical account of creation stated that "the beginning" happened 6,227 (or whatever) years ago", it would still be reasonable to suggest that the evidence collected and interpreted using the theory of evolution could be inaccurate...that the history of scientific discovery strongly supports the suggestion that a new discovery tomorrow could easily transform our current interpretation of that evidence or lead to new evidence that supports a radically different conclusion about the age of this planet.

Actually mainstream Christian hermeneutics has agreed with you for the past 2,000 years.

It is of modern invention of the 19th century development of Fundamental Christianity that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories grew into the staunch and dogmatic doctrine of "Creationism," i.e., the belief that the earth was created in six literal days. While there have been more ancient attempts to interpret these narrative as literal, none of these quite took hold until these evangelical Christians developed a new form of exegesis that called for a radical application of "sola scriptura."

From antiquity, as can be seen from the 4th century writings of Gregory Nazianzen, Christians recognized pretty much what you explain, that the narratives of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 (which, by the way are two totally different creation stories) were written as allegorical explanations of how humans have found themselves in the current moral dilemma we all face. They were not believed to be literal historical accounts or substitutes for scientific models, models which existed even back then.

A critical and analytical approach to these texts is the mainstay of hermeneutical models which Christian exegetes currently embrace. "Popular" views or interpretations of these narrative as history are either the testimony of a Fundamentalist Christian or that of a mainstream Christian with little to no training in current Biblical theology.

Because it is objective. Webster's-objective defined- relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence. Since it is objective it can be objectionable to some. So being objective is ridiculous or just a thought without existence. You can have your cake but you can't eat it!

The Culture has all the answers. You want to know where people came from? Well when the sky God got out of his canoe at the first waterfall and took a leak then we, the true people, appeared like ants and weve been living here ever since oh, gee thanks, Im glad I asked. This is what culture does for you.

Terence Mckenna

no they are the word of god

no they are not ridiculous

because the people who make up the evidence is bias and will not admit that god did what he said.

so they make up things that are not true.

such as dinosaurs evolved into birds yet studies how that did not happen.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/th...

so just because a scientist says hey this is how it happened does not mean it did.

there is no objective evidence its made up.

You should read Gore Vidal's novel "Creation."

Unfortunately, they have "faith"

That's not a good thing

duhhhhhhhhhhh

duhhhhhhhhhhh

cuz they not real?

No...