The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

Hi Danny,
In response to Brian's question, you wrote:"The mainstream scientific views on universal evolution are common knowledge. Many science textbooks contain it. If in doubt I refer you to your local library.
If you get a chance could you please critique my interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 regarding the so-called creation of atmosphere"Are you honestly trying to justify the validity of evolution by claiming it's "common knowledge" and that "many science textbooks contain it"? Personally, I am in serious doubt of macro-evolution through its repeated use of the phrase "millions and millions of years" to magically explain a theory that takes twice as much faith to believe than the literal translation of Genesis. If you truly believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I recommend that you stop trying to bend His teaching to fit the lies that today's society would have you believe.

Accidentally posted the same reply twice, please see below.Edited by Gigawatts, : posted same reply twice

Thanks for the welcome Jar. I'm enjoying myself already.My opinion is that the only "cult of ignorance" imposing its false teachings on our children is the public school system's method of passing off the unproven theories of macro-evolution as undisputed facts. Similarly, I would make no argument that the theory of Creationism (although it is the theory I personally accept) should be taught in schools as fact.Also, just out of curiosity, where does the following quote come from: "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Over 10,000 US Christian Clergy said that? Is that what you're saying? If that is the case, then I would submit that they are not Christians. Those who would label themselves as Christians and only pick and choose what they'd like to literally believe from the Bible completely destroy the only foundations of their faith. I cannot base my personal religion on a book which I believe to be fiction. THAT is absurd.Also, you wrote: "If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism." - I'm sorry, but if I truly believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), how could anything "Biblical" (from the Bible...word of God) be lies? If I accepted a religion where it's common knowledge that my one and only God lies on a regular basis, I'd be in trouble.

Thanks for your input, I agree.Edited by Gigawatts, : Thought I was replying to someone different.

Sorry, I understand what you're saying now. I was confused at first because I thought you were Jar, and presenting conflicting arguments. I need to pay attention.

Okay, so I'll only be speaking on Genesis 1 now. I will still maintain, however, in this one chapter there is no room for the existence of macro-evolution as the "Christian Clergy" would have you believe from the link you provided. The letter they wrote was filled with ridiculous statements. My favorite is the following quote: "Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth." This author and I seem to have very different definitions of the word "truth". I was under the impression that there is only one truth, something inherently concrete sans exceptions. Warping this definition to allow for multiple accepted answers for a single question would push us into the realm of the unitarian universalists and their adoption of moral relativism. Of course, I realize that just because you referenced something from the Clergy Project, doesn't mean that you accept what they believe. As for me, I will continue to accept the validity of Genesis 1 and it's literal translation long before I ever adopt a belief that something as infinitely complex as the universe we live in created itself out of nothing.

Did you mean to say that Biblical creationists are the only ones who claim macro-evolution is a belief that the universe created itself out of nothing? Am I just being too blunt with my description of the theory or is there something I'm missing? How would you describe it?

You're right, good catch. What I meant to say is "cosmic evolution". Macro Evolution is the idea of all current lifeforms developing from amoeba. And then there's micro evolution, the only kind I believe...the variety that creates minute changes in a given order of lifeforms (Darwin's finches etc.)

Okay, I understand more of where you're coming from now. Just need some more clarification...I'll stop using the term evolution because I seem to be screwing that up. Are you saying you don't believe the big bang theory, and you believe in creation, but just not as it's described in Genesis? Or do you believe something to the effect that God created the big bang? Is it something like that?

Thanks for clearing things up there. I'm just not sold on the falsehood of Genesis. Obviously, none of us were there at the beginning of time (be that 6000 years or billions of years ago), but as far as I can tell the modern science that is supposed to disprove Genesis 1 has too many holes in it. I know it's a cheap trick to end this discussion like that without justifying that statement, but i'm actually at work right now and an LE case has come up that requires my attention so I should focus. Thanks for the discussion though