JCC Christian Creation Theory

I've been working on a theory about science, creation, and how the Genesis account fits into both Christian theology and modern science. Since there are smart people here, I'll share it and get some input. Hijacking another thread would be rude, so I'm starting this one. I know from the other threads I've posted in that I can get some good, thoughtful responses. And some other responses, so I'll have to sort the wheat from the chaff, but what else can you expect on the internet? So, let me start on my theory:

In the beginning God created the universe. (Douglas Adams fans insert relevant quote here.) We'll assume He did it by the creative technique we've labeled the big bang. He also created life on Earth, including Adam and Eve, the first people. (Instant creation or guided evolution? We'll leave that one as an unknown for now.) Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, where the tree of life and the tree of knowledge grew, and there was no death there.

How long were they in the Garden living the good life? Genesis doesn't say. Could they have been there millions of years? While they were busy not dying, were dinosaurs roaming outside fossilizing and decaying into petrochemicals? Was there death outside Eden even though there was no death for those who were in the Garden, eating from the tree of life?

Then there was the serpent and the apple and temptation and failure. Adam and Eve were no longer perfect, so they couldn't live in the perfect place. They had to leave the Garden, which means they lost access to the tree of life. Without that, they were no longer immune from death. Imperfection and mortality took hold and it's been a struggle to survive ever since.

So, that's how I'm thinking about reconciling the apparent age of the world with Biblical accounts, taking into account both scientific evidence and theological principles.

I'm sure some of you are thinking, "There is no God, the Bible is fairy tale/myth, this is stupid/crazy!" We'll call that "Response A." If you feel an overwhelming need/burning desire to tell me that, feel free to simply respond "A." Save yourself the trouble of typing anything longer and I can just skim over that and move on to the other responses, which we'll call "Response B." (Apparently I've used up most of my imagination in my theory and don't have much left for naming responses.)

Response B: What scientific evidence have I overlooked? What theological principles have I violated? Which churches are likely to label me a heretic? What points would you like me to clarify? Thoughtful replies and constructive criticism are welcome and encouraged.

 

So Adam and Eve lived for millions of years in Eden while the dinosaurs walked the earth? And I'm guessing the sword that circled Eden protected them from the extinction event? Seems legit lol

 

I personally don't see any need to reconcile Creation with evolution. If you choose to look at Creation metaphorically, then you could probably say that God didn't think it was necessary for us to know the details, and also point to the fact that there's still so much about the universe we know nothing about...so in this sense leaving Creation as a mystery isn't all that big a deal. On the other hand if you look at Creation literally, then yes it does contradict evolution...but isn't faith by definition believing in something in spite of what the evidence tells you? So in this case there shouldn't be any reason to be bothered by what evolutionary science is saying...unless the church really feels that insecure about its own teachings.

 

Maybe Jesus was a dinosaur.

 

One, this thread proves why I believe Christians are on their way to being an endangered species. Two, Jesus as a dinosaur would be AWESOME.

 

Basically what I think. I had a guy ask me once why, if God had indeed used evolution to create the world, why he hadn't had that version of the story written down in Genesis. I mean, seriously? Number one, the method isn't the point of the Genesis narrative. Number two, God wouldn't have even been able to make a person of that historical period understand the process.

I accept the scientific view of the natural world. I just happen to also accept that God stands behind all of that.

 

I believe that the fact that there are two different versions of the Creation of Man in Genesis is a sign that we're not supposed to take it too literally. While the Scripture was written from divine inspiration, it was still written by people who lived thousands of years ago and knew nothing about quantum physics and theory of relativity. I believe the important bits on the Creation story as the Bible tells it are: 1. the Universe was created on purpose, it wasn't an accident (i. e. God is the origin and reason WHY the Universe exists, regardless of how exactly it happened), and 2. the Creation of the Universe was a good thing, and so is our existence. I believe that both the theory of the Big Bang and the theory of evolution are part of God's plan and all the inconsistencies and blank spots are merely due to our limited knowledge and we'll eventually get rid of them as we come up with new theories that better describe and explain God's work.

 

HYPOTHESIS. Not theory. Hypothesis.

Everything.

 

Yes, he was. A big purple one.

 

No.

1) There is no evidence to suggest that dinosaurs and humans ever walked together on the earth.
2) The dinosaurs fossilized after they died for millions of years underground.
3) Humans have never not died. There is no scientific basis for biological immortality. That's in the realm of science fiction worse than VLM's warp drive nonsense.

What empirical evidence to you have to back up this tree of life stuff?

 

Well, the order that Genesis lists does have to be thrown out as an actual list to fit with scientific evidence.

The biggest issue is that humans fit neatly into the picture when DNA is looked at to compare humanity with the rest of primates/mammals and the like, as well as a fossil record. So there is strong evidence that shows humans evolved from other life, not spontaneously showed up on the scene.

 

Now there's a point I've genuinely never heard anyone raise before. Which is odd considering how long I've been reading on this stuff.

EDIT: I'm mentioning Chorus' point, actually.

 

This story also does not allow for human evolution. If this story were true, Adam and Eve are fully modern humans who existed for countless eons in Eden before being cast out, and would have been fully modern humans after being cast out.

This conflicts with evolutionary science and the evolution of the human species.

 

I find it interesting that light was created three days before the Sun, Moon and the stars. I wonder how could people in the Old Testament wrap their heads around light existing before the actual sources of light. Of course, it fits nicely with the Big Bang theory in that photons existed long before the first stars were formed.

 

A Dinosaur that rises from the Dead.......Can we say Jurassic Park Jesus????

 

Sarge, you're a pretty cool guy, but that entire second to last paragraph reads as

which just makes you come across as a whiner.

 

I think it makes more sense to figure out spiritual truths informed by physical/scientific truths than to do a **** ton of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty to work out physical/scientific truths informed by spiritual truths.

 

what is this i dont even

 

Eh, it's been done.

 

I am neither religious nor an atheist. The closest word to describe me would probably be agnostic, at least something close along those lines. I do not really believe that the big answers to the big questions are readily within our grasp at the present time. I fink skepticism to be a useful intellectual tool, not necessarily an answer in and of itself. I think the questions as to the origin and true nature of reality remain open, but I also believe that there has been no testable evidence of a creator.

One question that I often have when reading things such as this for the religious minded, if God as a creator did indeed create us in his image as the story goes, and he gave us this ability to think and reason, does it not stand to reason that he would expect us to use it? To create science, and scientific method, to explore the big questions and the nature of this universe with our intellect? Why argue against the findings of science, would not such a creator wish you to embrace this gift?

 

To answer your second paragraph: yes, absolutely.

 

I honestly feel like the only rational answer to the question "is there a God" is "I don't know"

I find that quote from your brother's church to be terrifying.

Upon second reading, they are encouraging people to use their minds, so I take that back!