Religion's Answer to Fossils?

[Encore]

Ironically, despite this country being very traditional and catholic, we don't have nearly the same problems with the theory of Evolution that the US have. Here, it's commonly accepted by priests that many of the things described in the bible are meant to be seen as metaphors, and not to be taken literally (including the events describing the Creation). They have lots of issues with other things like contraceptives and abortion, but no one really cares about Evolution.

Anyway, and to answer the question - I'm not religious personally, but some of my family is, and their approach is that everything is a part of God's design, including all other species that came before us.

Frankly, I think that if you're going to believe in an all powerful entity that created the Universe and drafted its rules - that should be an inevitable conclusion.

In fact, if I were in that place, I would easily accept all scientific discoveries as part of God's work. I'm not sure why religious people find this so difficult (which is partly why I created that other thread in this section, though it didn't help me reach any conclusions ).

[tampi]

To me, do not cause any discomfort or disagreement the discovery of prehistoric fossils or anything like that. They're just there as a stage of creation.

"For God, one day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day." Both figures are symbolic and they explain that the time for God, do not have to correspond to human time necessarily.

[The Great Chi]

Originally Posted by Dennis's Mom

....The winner was the "Creative Evolution" theory which (I'm paraphrasing from memory here,) said Evolution was a lie, but God spent an awful lot of time and effort putting all those fossils in the ground and making our DNA resemble primates, so we'd better believe it if we know what's good for us.

Reminds me of the fictional book STRATA about making Planets using really big heavy machinery, written by Terry Pratchett of Discworld fame.

One of the Strata-machine operators for a joke plants a dinosaur skeleton in a rock seam holding a placard that reads "End Nuclear Testing Now"

I wonder what future generations would have made of that

[Draco]

Originally Posted by tampi

To me, do not cause any discomfort or disagreement the discovery of prehistoric fossils or anything like that. They're just there as a stage of creation.

"For God, one day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day." Both figures are symbolic and they explain that the time for God, do not have to correspond to human time necessarily.

So if I understand you correctly, the creation story is really just a summary of events rather than an accurate portrayal? Like rather than literally six days, the bible really means six billion years?

[Dennis's Mom]

I believe the story to be allegorical, which isn't to say it isn't true. I believe the truths it reveals have to do with the nature of man and his relationship with God than a news account of how the earth was made. (Although if you know anything about how the earth was made, it gets it mostly right in a very, very Reader's Digest version.) A news account has nothing to do with my salvation in Jesus Christ. My need for salvation does. For me, that's the point of the Bible, so that's the lens I use to read it.

[tampi]

Originally Posted by Draco

So if I understand you correctly, the creation story is really just a summary of events rather than an accurate portrayal? Like rather than literally six days, the bible really means six billion years?

Yes, more or less.

Can you think on a book explaining from day 1 the whole universe history?lol

Impossible first and second:People could think: " but, how is the message?

[irjudd]

Originally Posted by Draco

So if I understand you correctly, the creation story is really just a summary of events rather than an accurate portrayal? Like rather than literally six days, the bible really means six billion years?

If I may interject a comment adding to the interchange between yourself and Tampi:

Genesis opens with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. So, according to the Bible's opening words, the universe and our planet was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

A second point I wanted to add is that the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Moses actually refers to all six creative days as one day at Genesis 2:4.

An examination of how one creative "day" seems to overlap the other in the progression leads me to believe that the Bible really does not specify the actual age of the "heavens and earth" in any way.

[scoopy_loopy]

My biology teacher was a closet super religious person, he believed evolution was part of the plan.

Back when I was younger and believing in god was simply what was done, I believed that too. "God made the big bang", I remember saying.

[Ward Dragon]

Originally Posted by Dennis's Mom

Same here.

Although ages ago I subscribed to a science magazine called "Omni". They had a reader contest to make up the best scientific theory (any subject).

The winner was the "Creative Evolution" theory which (I'm paraphrasing from memory here,) said Evolution was a lie, but God spent an awful lot of time and effort putting all those fossils in the ground and making our DNA resemble primates, so we'd better believe it if we know what's good for us.

I like that

Originally Posted by Encore

Ironically, despite this country being very traditional and catholic, we don't have nearly the same problems with the theory of Evolution that the US have. Here, it's commonly accepted by priests that many of the things described in the bible are meant to be seen as metaphors, and not to be taken literally (including the events describing the Creation). They have lots of issues with other things like contraceptives and abortion, but no one really cares about Evolution.

That makes sense The Catholic church officially accepts evolution and has supported scientific study in the past. For example, Mendel was a friar and he was more or less responsible for establishing the field of genetics. Several of the saints basically said that if the church wants to teach people about spiritual matters, then it cannot lose credibility by spreading false information about science and the physical universe. If people know from experience that a religious figure is wrong about something that can be tested, then why would people believe that person about anything else that can't be tested?

As for the abortion and contraceptive thing, Catholics believe that the purpose of marriage is to have children so they're against anything that prevents having children. I think that's a carryover from the days when Christians were persecuted and had to have as many children as possible in order for the faith to survive by getting passed down to the children.

Originally Posted by irjudd

If I may interject a comment adding to the interchange between yourself and Tampi:

Genesis opens with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. So, according to the Bible's opening words, the universe and our planet was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

A second point I wanted to add is that the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Moses actually refers to all six creative days as one day at Genesis 2:4.

An examination of how one creative "day" seems to overlap the other in the progression leads me to believe that the Bible really does not specify the actual age of the "heavens and earth" in any way.

That's a very interesting analysis I never made that connection before but it makes sense. The passage seems intentionally vague enough that it could fit with the scientific evidence, which is good. I think the point of it is to get across more of a philosophical message (not a detailed historical message).

[sierra xb]

Originally Posted by tampi

To me, do not cause any discomfort or disagreement the discovery of prehistoric fossils or anything like that. They're just there as a stage of creation.

"For God, one day is a thousand years and a thousand years a day." Both figures are symbolic and they explain that the time for God, do not have to correspond to human time necessarily.

That verse has been taken out of context so many times with the explicit purpose of doing what you have just done with it. The expression is actually used twice in the scriptures (Psalm 90:4 and and 2 Peter 3:8), both scriptures (in context) relate to details about general history, and God's judgement specifically. It is ironic that in 2 Peter, just a few verses earlier (verses 3-7) actually mention the creation and the flood (verse 6 specifically). Verses 5 and 6 indicate that people are "willingly ignorant" of both the creation process AND the existence of a literal worldwide flood.

Also, the 1 day=1,000 years thing doesn't work for Genesis because of the order of creation. It cannot be taken to mean "hundreds", "thousands", or even "billions" of years for the specific purpose of explaining Gen.1:3-31...here is why. According to the Genesis chapter 1 account, plants were made on day 3 (verses 11-13), but the sun was created on day 4 (verses 14-19). Now, if the days were normal days, then this is no problem, but if the days are longer periods of time, then it becomes an issue because plants cannot survive without sunlight for more than a few days, let alone millions of years. This poses a problem for the Christian...either take the bible as written, or believe that God can't get His creation story straight.

Originally Posted by Dennis's Mom

I believe the story to be allegorical, which isn't to say it isn't true. I believe the truths it reveals have to do with the nature of man and his relationship with God than a news account of how the earth was made. (Although if you know anything about how the earth was made, it gets it mostly right in a very, very Reader's Digest version.) A news account has nothing to do with my salvation in Jesus Christ. My need for salvation does. For me, that's the point of the Bible, so that's the lens I use to read it.

So, as a christian (I am assuming because of your statement "my salvation in Jesus Christ), how can you trust the bible's message of salvation, if you can't trust to take the Genesis account at face value? I have always wondered about why some people pick and choose what parts of the bible they wish to accept, and what parts to "allegorize". Just curious...

Originally Posted by irjudd

Genesis opens with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. So, according to the Bible's opening words, the universe and our planet was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

A second point I wanted to add is that the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Moses actually refers to all six creative days as one day at Genesis 2:4.

An examination of how one creative "day" seems to overlap the other in the progression leads me to believe that the Bible really does not specify the actual age of the "heavens and earth" in any way.

The concept that you described is called the "gap" theory (that there is a history gap between Genesis ch. 1 verse one and verse two. That may be a theory as far as bible scholars go, but it doesn't work in doctrinal practice for actual christians if they really think about what it would mean. At the end of the 6 creation days, God said that everything was "very good". I doubt that God would have said something like that if there had already been billions of years of death and extinction, which is exactly what the gap theory proposes. In any case, just because "some" biblcal scholars believe this, does not mean they really understand how it could work.

Also, the hebrew word for day "yom" definitely can mean something other than a normal 24-hour day, but there are some herbrew rules that limit what it can mean. The word "day" is modified by a numerical sequence (first day, second day, etc.), and by the repetative "evening and morning" phrase. Every other time that the old testament uses the word "yom" in combination with those modifiers, it has meant a literal 24-hour day...ever time. Why would it be any different in Genesis when there are at least 15 other hebrew words that can mean "an indefinite period of time"? Why not use one of those words instead of the very specific "yom"?

In any case (to stay on topic), from a Christian's viewpoint, the flood would be the ONLY process described in the bible that can easily account for the fossils (see my previous post regarding fossilization processes).