1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the evidence is overwhelming to accept it.
I used to think that too until I actually investigated what factual evidence they had for their theory. It's a clever bit of sleight of hand when you really examine the theory for yourself.
You see, they have "evidence" for adaptation, which some call "micro-evolution" but this is only small changes in a single species that is created when a creature is forced by circumstance into a new habitat or to adopt a new diet. Science can demonstrate that this happens because they have done lab experiments to prove it. Now, here is where the sleight of hand comes in.....they "suggest" (but have no actual evidence) that this process goes way past what they can prove. This they call "macro-evolution". This is the assumption that if a little works to change a creature slightly (though never taking it out of its taxonomic family or "kind") then time would necessarily change one creature with multiple adaptations or mutations into many different creatures. This "assumption" is "suggested" (but which is presented as if it were fact) because they have no actual evidence to back it up. The "evidence" is their interpretation of what they want to believe. It all sounds so convincing until you realize that its all smoke and mirrors.
They will push this agenda by ridiculing anyone who dares to point out that they have no proof for any of it. Accusations of "you are uneducated in science" or "you don't understand how evolution works"....or that the evidence is "overwhelming" betrays the fact that they have no real physical support for this theory but pretending that they do. The power of suggestion is huge, as any advertising agency will tell you. If they had real proof, rather than just elaborate diagrams and great video graphics, then perhaps they could not be so roundly challenged on this topic.
What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was adaptation, not evolution. Unless you know the difference, it is easy to pull the wool over uneducated eyes.....and even educated ones who have a need for it to be true. We will all believe what we want to believe.
2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.
YEC is also false. The 7 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The creatures that pre-date man were not created 24 hours before them. The first verse of Genesis ch 1 makes a simple statement of a single creative act of monumental proportions, but what follows does not in any way preclude the idea that the earth itself is very ancient.
There could well have been millions of years before God chose the earth to prepare for habitation by living things.
Each creative "day" could well have been thousands or even million of years long. The Hebrew word "day" is "yohm" which can mean a period of time, not just a 24 hour period. That means that creation could have been a slow and deliberate process with the Creator taking all the time necessary to craft each and every living thing to his satisfaction. Each "day" ended with a declaration that all was going to plan according to his purpose.
My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.
There can be harmony if you know what to harmonize and what to eliminate as fantasy.
The universe popping into existence in one Big Bang for no apparent reason and then life appearing from nowhere and transforming itself into all the lifeforms that we can see on this planet is fantasy with not a single shred of proof to back it up.
Conversely, if there was an intelligent force behind creation and it wasn't some big magician in the sky waving his wand, then science can be used to find evidence for that Creator, without being shackled by either equally ridiculous scenarios.
Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?
Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing can't create anything....finding a solution to the dilemma means searching the actual evidence for ways to correlate them. There is a meeting in the middle that allows science and God to be a superb team.
I didn't vote because there didn't seem to be one that fitted what I believe.
Last edited: