Seth W Bartels

>**but i wasn't aware that this idea was something commonly
>held by groups of people these days.**

>http://www.creationseminar.net/it's_a_young_earth.htm
>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-269.htm
>http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp
>http://www.halos.com/videos/

>That should get you started. :)

woowee...color me uninformed! when i was a young one (which was the only
time i was actively exposed to christianity), i remember my mom
explaining to me how she thought that the creation story in the bible
could include scientific explanations of evolution if you considered that
each *day* wasn't literally the 24 hours we call a day...that it somehow
encompassed large chunks of time where things on earth naturally evolved
from the seed that God planted. it made sense to me, so i guess i never
questioned it further. and now as an adult on my own non-christian
spiritual path, i'm still not finding anything that's conflicting with
the theory of evolution. *shrug* i'm befuddled. :)

thanks for the eye opening!
lisa

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

nellebelle

I've always figured that if one accepts that God created the planet, why does it matter whether the 7 days are literal or not? Couldn't an all powerful being create the earth and universe anyway that suited its fancy? Who is to say that God didn't just snap his/her fingers and cause the big bang?

Mary Ellen
Whose two other homeschooling families right in my neighborhood won't play with us.
----- Original Message ----- i remember my mom
explaining to me how she thought that the creation story in the bible
could include scientific explanations of evolution if you considered that
each *day* wasn't literally the 24 hours we call a day...that it somehow
encompassed large chunks of time where things on earth naturally evolved
from the seed that God planted. it made sense to me, so i guess i never
questioned it further. and now as an adult on my own non-christian
spiritual path, i'm still not finding anything that's conflicting with
the theory of evolution.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Elizabeth Roberts

Well, see, that's where our beliefs fall. I've usually
heard it referred to as Intelligent Design. I feel
like Creation is what God did, and (some but not all)
evolutionary theory can explain quite a bit of the how
He did it. I could be wrong, and I don't mind if I am.
I figure when it's my time, I'll have all the time I
need to ask questions of God!

Elizabeth

--- nellebelle <nellebelle@...> wrote:

> I've always figured that if one accepts that God
> created the planet, why does it matter whether the 7
> days are literal or not? Couldn't an all powerful
> being create the earth and universe anyway that
> suited its fancy? Who is to say that God didn't
> just snap his/her fingers and cause the big bang?
>
> Mary Ellen
> Whose two other homeschooling families right in my
> neighborhood won't play with us.
> ----- Original Message ----- i remember my mom
> explaining to me how she thought that the creation
> story in the bible
> could include scientific explanations of evolution
> if you considered that
> each *day* wasn't literally the 24 hours we call a
> day...that it somehow
> encompassed large chunks of time where things on
> earth naturally evolved
> from the seed that God planted. it made sense to
> me, so i guess i never
> questioned it further. and now as an adult on my
> own non-christian
> spiritual path, i'm still not finding anything
> that's conflicting with
> the theory of evolution.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


=====
Elizabeth
Http://rainbowacademy.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Julie Bogart

--- In [email protected], Elizabeth Roberts <ladyeliza_r@y...>
wrote:
>
> Well, see, that's where our beliefs fall. I've usually
> heard it referred to as Intelligent Design. I feel
> like Creation is what God did, and (some but not all)
> evolutionary theory can explain quite a bit of the how
> He did it. I could be wrong, and I don't mind if I am.
> I figure when it's my time, I'll have all the time I
> need to ask questions of God!
>
> Elizabeth

The main issue for most Christians who take the Bible literally is that an Intelligent Design
model may solve the crisis of Genesis 1 but it doesn't make sense of Genesis 2-3.
Important doctrines about humans and sin are lost in a slow evolutionary creation and
that's what keeps so many conservative Christians six-day creationists. How can Adam
and Eve be created in a perfect world if they are evolved from earlier humanoid forms in a
clearly imperfect world?

Mainline churches (including the Catholic church) have gotten around this to some degree
by making Genesis 2-3 more about the human condition in relationship to God than about
the literal creation of man and woman... but that becomes a sticky wicket very quickly too
as is easily discovered once you wade into evolutionary waters. :)

Julie B

Elizabeth Roberts

Julie,

I'm not so certain. I have read some interesting
science about some research and typing of DNA back to
a "Mitochondrial Eve." I'll have to look for the book
again, if you're interested. It's an interesting
theory, and to me entirely possible that current
generations of mankind truly be descendent from one
man and one woman. And if you recall, I did say that
don't agree with all of evolution. Again, both are
theories. I could very well be wrong with my beliefs
and opinions. I'll know one way or another someday, so
I don't worry too much about it right now LOL!

Elizabeth

--- Julie Bogart <julie@...> wrote:

>
> --- In [email protected],
> Elizabeth Roberts <ladyeliza_r@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, see, that's where our beliefs fall. I've
> usually
> > heard it referred to as Intelligent Design. I feel
> > like Creation is what God did, and (some but not
> all)
> > evolutionary theory can explain quite a bit of the
> how
> > He did it. I could be wrong, and I don't mind if I
> am.
> > I figure when it's my time, I'll have all the time
> I
> > need to ask questions of God!
> >
> > Elizabeth
>
> The main issue for most Christians who take the
> Bible literally is that an Intelligent Design
> model may solve the crisis of Genesis 1 but it
> doesn't make sense of Genesis 2-3.
> Important doctrines about humans and sin are lost in
> a slow evolutionary creation and
> that's what keeps so many conservative Christians
> six-day creationists. How can Adam
> and Eve be created in a perfect world if they are
> evolved from earlier humanoid forms in a
> clearly imperfect world?
>
> Mainline churches (including the Catholic church)
> have gotten around this to some degree
> by making Genesis 2-3 more about the human condition
> in relationship to God than about
> the literal creation of man and woman... but that
> becomes a sticky wicket very quickly too
> as is easily discovered once you wade into
> evolutionary waters. :)
>
> Julie B
>
>
>
>


=====
Elizabeth
Http://rainbowacademy.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/17/2004 3:14:17 PM Mountain Standard Time,
nellebelle@... writes:
I've always figured that if one accepts that God created the planet, why does
it matter whether the 7 days are literal or not?
==========

Because to Bible literalists, who worship the book first and the characters
later, if one thing isn't literally true, then something (or all) else might
not be literally true either. If the world wasn't created in six days, Jesus
might not be coming back any day now.

Those literalists who aren't concerned about literal 24 hour days quote this:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8)

-=-I did say that don't agree with all of evolution. Again, both are
theories.=-


One is a theory. One is either a story in a book, or the literal word of
God. Not a theory, either way.

One has some evidence. One is either a story in a book or the literal word
of God with no other evidence.

Statements like "they're both equally valid" or "science is just another
religion" are both statement made by people who want to create a false equality
between direct observation and faith. They're not comparable.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Adams

>-=-I did say that don't agree with all of evolution. Again, both are
>theories.=-
>
>
>One is a theory. One is either a story in a book, or the literal word of
>God. Not a theory, either way.
>
>One has some evidence. One is either a story in a book or the literal word
>of God with no other evidence.
>
>Statements like "they're both equally valid" or "science is just another
>religion" are both statement made by people who want to create a false equality
>between direct observation and faith. They're not comparable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

I think there's a big misunderstanding of the meaning of theory too. People think it's akin to a hunch or maybe a hypothesis. But a scientific theory like evolution is made on a mountain of evolution. The theory came after observing the evidence availible, it's not something someone dreamed up and then science had to dig for proof for it. Part of the argument against counts on people who don't understand how theories work. Nevermind that we can see evolution around us all the time. Would there really be superbugs immune to new anti biotics or insects who developed pesticide resistence without evolution?

The debate on evolution seems to count on people having a poor understanding of science.

National geographic has a good basic article on evolution this month.

Dawn (in NS)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andy Holly Clarke

glad to hear i am not the only one who thought that.

thanks,
holly c.
----- Original Message -----
From: "nellebelle" <nellebelle@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:59 PM
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: young earth creationism


>
> I've always figured that if one accepts that God created the planet, why
does it matter whether the 7 days are literal or not? Couldn't an all
powerful being create the earth and universe anyway that suited its fancy?
Who is to say that God didn't just snap his/her fingers and cause the big
bang?
>
> Mary Ellen
> Whose two other homeschooling families right in my neighborhood won't play
with us.
> ----- Original Message ----- i remember my mom
> explaining to me how she thought that the creation story in the bible
> could include scientific explanations of evolution if you considered
that
> each *day* wasn't literally the 24 hours we call a day...that it somehow
> encompassed large chunks of time where things on earth naturally evolved
> from the seed that God planted. it made sense to me, so i guess i never
> questioned it further. and now as an adult on my own non-christian
> spiritual path, i'm still not finding anything that's conflicting with
> the theory of evolution.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> "List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
>
> Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
http://www.unschooling.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>