My creation/evolution theory

[gogobuffalo]

I don't know if there is a penalty for "trolling" on this forum, such as posting the same thing on more than one board. But I realized I posted my theory on the wrong board, and it's not like I'm making this thing spread like cancer. I just want it where people see it and can remark on it and tell me what they think.

Evolution and Our Earth's Creation

Many people do not believe that evolution and Creation through God can be combined. And even more people do not think that evolution can be compatible with a Christian theory (not believed by all Christians and necessarily in the Bible) that the world is only 8,000 years old. But I believe that all three can be matched perfectly.
First of all, we must think, why did God create Earth and the universe? Obviously, it was for mankind, so mankind is what He had in mind while he created the universe. He is omniscient, so he knew everything that would transpire and what He must do to create today's Earth. If evolution is correct, then for our Earth to reach the current level it is in (the most favorable for humans, and the one in which humans live), the earth would have to be millions of years old. But God was creating the Earth with man in mind. My thought on this is that God then created the Earth “in-motion.”
What does this mean? This means that God did not a brand-new Earth that was just starting, but that He created an Earth that was in the middle of its existence. He created Earth and the universe as if they had existed their respective millions and billions of years. So while He was creating them they had just been born, they were millions of years old. For some people, this is a very hard concept to grasp. I've explained it to a few people, and some catch on to it right away and others struggle to comprehend what it says. I believe that reading it instead of hearing it would be even harder, so I'm going to try and explain it more.
It makes sense that God would create the Earth in motion, for He did the same with man. He did not create Adam and Eve as two babies. This would not have worked out for they could not have cared for themselves and would have died. So God instead created two adults, so even though they had just been born, it was as if they had existed for about 25 years.
God did the very same thing with Earth. For Earth to have all of the conditions it has today, and to continue forward with the same principles, and I mean exactly the same, it would have to have existed for millions of years. Just like Adam and Even would have to have existed for about 25 years to become adults. But just like His instant creation of them, God created an Earth that was millions of years old at the time He created it. This provided us with all the evolved animals and plants that help mankind. And it even provides us with things we sometimes wouldn't think of as gifts from God. Fossils and plant matter being in the soil for millions of years provided fossil fuels for us, and there are countless other examples.
This theory seems to make complete sense. The universe and Earth are much too complicated, amazing, and perfect to have happened by chance, but evolution appears to have very solid scientific foundations. But as you can see, a perfect clear-cut line can be drawn to connect Creationism and evolution. Yet again Christianity can shrug off every attack put forth against it, for it is perfect and without wrong.

[WWJnotD]

I don't rate this theory highly lol since i don't think there is a problem between Creationism and evolution in the first place in that Evolution (molecules to man) is based on an interpretation of facts and that interpretation is religious in nature not scientific.

The only reason people think the earth is well old is probs cos of the layers in the earths structure but those layers can easily be explained by the flood. I don't think that the earth would have to have been millions of years (MofYs) to sustain us since God could just create the condition straight way and plus . I don't think either that God created bones in the soil or plant matter to create fossils fuels since it doesn't take MofYs to produce fossils fuels anyway. In some instances it can take a matter of months.

[jenna]

I don't rate this theory highly lol since i don't think there is a problem between Creationism and evolution in the first place in that Evolution (molecules to man) is based on an interpretation of facts and that interpretation is religious in nature not scientific.
The only reason people think the earth is well old is probs cos of the layers in the earths structure but those layers can easily be explained by the flood. I don't think that the earth would have to have been millions of years (MofYs) to sustain us since God could just create the condition straight way and plus . I don't think either that God created bones in the soil or plant matter to create fossils fuels since it doesn't take MofYs to produce fossils fuels anyway. In some instances it can take a matter of months.

Actually, evolution is based on an interpretation of THEORIES, not facts, and that interpretation is scientific in nature, not religious.

[WWJnotD]

Actually, evolution is based on an interpretation of THEORIES, not facts, and that interpretation is scientific in nature, not religious.

Erm EVolution is a theory? There are basic facts and data in the world. Theories are used to interpret that data into a reliable consistant framework. Evolution is that framework, however it is guised as a scientific framework which isn't strictly correct. SInce the theory is trying to make sense of the past alot of assumptions and presuppumtions influence the interpretation of the data. EVolution can't be tested or observed because it happened in the unobservable past so it places it in the catagory historical sciences. EVolution is basically a fully fledge alternative to Christianity in every way. Evolution is based on unproveable assumptions which can't be proven or disproved. In the case of EVolution it's the belief in Naturalism

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

'Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.'

[jenna]

No offense, but these are the words and quotes from a MAN. A MAN'S ideas. Where does it specify in the BIBLE anything about evolution? What does GOD say about it?

[WWJnotD]

No offense, but these are the words and quotes from a MAN. A MAN'S ideas. Where does it specify in the BIBLE anything about evolution? What does GOD say about it?

Like the Bible is gonna contain any information about molecule to man evolution lol. Thats like the stupidist question ever its like me giving the quote by an expert historian on the nature of world war 2 and you saying, where does it specify in the Bible anything about world war 2. What does God say about it. Just because the Bible doesn't affirm the opinion doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. If you try and mix molecules to man evolution with it's time frame ect and christianity, Christianity and the Bible just crumbles.

[jenna]

A stupid question? I don't think so, and I definitely don't appreciate you saying it either. I don't go by what man says I should believe on EVOLUTION. That is the topic here, not WWII. Changing the subject and calling other people's questions stupid is not going to help your situation at all.

[Canuckster1127]

A lot of confusion enters into the Creation/Evolution discussion because people use terms loosely and different points of view tend to use the terms to mean different things.

I'm an Old Earth Creationist. I believe the Bible is entirely true. I also believe that not all truth is contained in the Bible. The Bible contains everything I believe God has intended to communicate to Man in order to understand who we are, who God is and what God's plan for redemption of man is.

The Bible is not a science text but where it speaks to scientific issues I expect it to be and believe it is true.

Evolution is a scientific theory. I get a little upset with my fellow well-meaning Christians when they use terms like "evolution is just a theory." What they are doing is known as a category error in logic. When science uses the word theory, it is being used in a very specific manner tied to the scientific method and the context means much more than the general use of "theory" being appealed to be those attempting to blow past that and discount the science and biology and make it appear that scientists are just idly speculating. Theory in the scientific sense means there is a great deal of information and experimentation and that a working explanation has been developed to explain why things are the way they are and further to predict what specific inputs and circumstances will produce in the future.

Evolution is also a very loaded terms. It can be used very narrowly in the scientific sense where the scope is tied to that scientific theory.

It can be used very broadly to define more than science and appeal to an entire philosophy that is materialistic, denies the presence of God and believes that everything in this world has a logical, physical, non-spiritual explaination. It can also be used my many to mean almost anything in between the 2 extremes.

I think as Christians we need to be very careful in our discussions with ourselves and with those outside the church especially to be very careful and clear as to how we are understanding and using terms and extend the same courtesy to others to clarify and explain what they mean and seek where we can to come to common ground.

Science and Theology will always have areas that disagree because each contains an important element; interpretation.

Science is the interpretation and understanding of the physical universe which Christians believe was created by God.

Theology is the interpretation and understanding of God and his revealed word which Christians believe was given by God.

The Bible, God and the Universe in that context have no conflicts. It isn't until man in his finite understanding and range of experience in BOTH science and theology seeks to reconcile the two that the conflicts arise.

Don't read too much into that please. I believe in the Bible first as the preferred means of understanding God and the Universe but I also recognize that there is much it doesn't address and much it was never intended to address. Science makes mistakes, regularly. We're not as quick to recognize it but Theology can be mistaken too. Admitting mistakes or "I don't know" with regard to theology is not the same as admitting that the Bible is wrong.

I think we could all do with a little more humility and a little more precision in how we seek to communicate to help lessen some of these elements.

[jenna]

Thank you for this. It does explain things better and in a better way than another post did.

[Canuckster1127]

Thank you for this. It does explain things better and in a better way than another post did.

You're welcome. Sometimes is helps to step back and think about the big picture.

[WWJnotD]

A stupid question? I don't think so, and I definitely don't appreciate you saying it either. I don't go by what man says I should believe on EVOLUTION. That is the topic here, not WWII. Changing the subject and calling other people's questions stupid is not going to help your situation at all.

He wasn't telling you wat to believe he was say what evolution in a molecules to man sense is. It's a an alternative to Christianity answering the same questions as Christian it has it's own presuppositions as Christianity (you don't need to get the Bible's conformation for these things), Therefore it's basically an idea based primarily on faith not evidence since no matter what the evidence shows they will not abandon the presuppositiosn with which the General theory of evolution rests, most notably naturalism. The WW2 illustration is to show how werid (to me) your question was since it implys that for everything, whether the Bible discusses it or not must be approved of by the Bible before it can be agreed upon or even considered. Yeah it's a mans opinion but where is it gonna mention his option about evolution in the Bible? Evolution as we understand it wasn't even known about in Biblical times lol

[jenna]

I understand what you are saying, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I don't think anyone has the right to call someone else's questions "stupid", or in ANY WAY degrade that person for asking something. Yes, my question may have seemed weird to some, but it is possible to talk to someone without putting them down. That was my point. It totally infuriates me when someone talks to me the way that he did.

[Marcosll]

I liked reading your Creation/Evolution theory.

I had a similar theory a while back.

[Toe Knee Below Knee]

Hello, this is my first post in this forum.

Macro-evolution is unsubstantiated. That is the theoretical changing of one species into a different species. It hasn't happened. It's a failing hope.
Micro-evolution is happening. Changes within a species. Variances.

[Robert Byers]

Hello, this is my first post in this forum.

Macro-evolution is unsubstantiated. That is the theoretical changing of one species into a different species. It hasn't happened. It's a failing hope.
Micro-evolution is happening. Changes within a species. Variances.

Your right. macro has no evidence behind it that can't be dismissed.
Is micro happening? well there is change within kind but is it from natural selection? Its reasonable to see selection having an impact but even this is not shown to be the mechanism for change within a species.
For example I believe marsupials are a post flood adaptation from the regular placental creatures. A marsupial mole is the same thing as a placental mole. I accept therefore great adaptation within kind. Likewise this YEC guy accepts whales are a land based animal that only adapted to water after the flood.
All the best