some believe that the Biblical line, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was without "form' and 'void', Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

@kingsikaz,

kingsikaz:

Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

I'm persuaded that Genesis 1 v 1 declares the creation; while verse 2 highlights another epoch.

RE-CREATION.
It is a neverending cycle of creations-destruction-recreation that has been going on for billions of years(sorry,that is not in the bible).This present creation will also be replaced by a newer one in the future.

kingsikaz:

some believe that the Biblical line, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was without "form' and 'void', Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

@ poster
some believe that d lines is mainly a re- creation of what had been destroyed some believe it is creation while others are even trying 2 integrate evolution in d matter.


i think there's more 2 learn,

There are no conflicts here.Evolution is just the tool used by the creator to create this world.

kingsikaz:

@ poster
some believe that d lines is mainly a re- creation of what had been destroyed some believe it is creation while others are even trying 2 integrate evolution in d matter.

i think there's more 2 learn,

jagunlabi:

There are no conflicts here.Evolution is just the tool used by the creator to create this world.

Jagunlabi,

Only a fraud will advocate CREATION and also EVOLUTION. Where do you stand. If the former, then what books/guide do you have from him detailing whom he is and what hedoes? If the latter, can you tell me why evolutionists (seeking scietific solutions) have not been able to create a single cell with the scietists agreeing that it is impossible for the cell (even the simplest of them like the Mycoplasma Genitallium) to evolve.

Get your facts right and dont come out confused.

kingsikaz:

some believe that the Biblical line, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was without "form' and 'void', Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

Neither.

cgift:

Jagunlabi,

Only a fraud will advocate CREATION and also EVOLUTION.

That's drunk talk. Many theistic evolutionists, particularly the Christian ones, do believe that evolution was chosen as the method of creation by some deity or the other. The idea is basically similar to the concept of the rainbow. That is, yes a literalist Christian could believe that a rainbow is a sign of God's promise to Noah, but that doesn't preclude the rainbow from being refracted light. A theist can thus claim, just like in the case of creation through evolution, that refraction of light was God's way of bringing about something "miraculous".

Where do you stand. If the former, then what books/guide do you have from him detailing whom he is and what hedoes? If the latter, can you tell me why evolutionists (seeking scietific solutions) have not been able to create a single cell with the scietists agreeing that it is impossible for the cell (even the simplest of them like the Mycoplasma Genitallium) to evolve.

Get your facts right and don't come out confused.

Um, I don't think you understand evolution very much. Cells within a population do evolve. That much is verifiable. If, however, what you did intend to ask was simply "why scientists haven't be able to create cells?" then abiogenesis is down the hall. While the eventual findings on abiogenesis may influence naturalism, it doesn't aversly affect the theory of evolution as it currently stands.

KAG:

Neither.

I want to believe your choice of "neither" in this case means your "opposition" to Creation - That mean you disagree with the claim that Someone took His time to create things literarily. Ok. If that is the case, can you then tell us what the first created (may be evoluted) entity was and how it came into being?

That's drunk talk. Many theistic evolutionists, particularly the Christian ones, do believe that evolution was chosen as the method of creation by some deity or the other.

Ok. The reason why this proposition is unfounded is that you are neither here or there. You talk of some deity? Do you know him? What are his attributes? How do you relate with him? How are you even sure he created or "chose evolution" as the process? You then go ahead to advocate evolution: My question is this: has evolution stopped? What are humans going to evolve to in i don't know how long a time? Do you have answers to these? What trends have been seen or what proofs have you that evolution continues or has the "deity" in question stopped evolution from continuing?

Um, I don't think you understand evolution very much. Cells within a population do evolve. That much is verifiable. If, however, what you did intend to ask was simply "why scientists haven't be able to create cells?" then abiogenesis is down the hall. While the eventual findings on abiogenesis may influence naturalism, it doesn't aversly affect the theory of evolution as it currently stands.

You only being presumptious here. For decades and centuries, they have not being able to explain how the first cells came about? Even the simplest of cells like the Mycoplasma Genitalium among others, have not been able to be unravelled. Now tell me, if evolution or phylogenesis advocates sequences that culminated in the basic fundamentals of all living beings i.e., the cells, why is it that they have not been able to create a cell even with abiogenesis? By my understanding, abiogenesis means A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter - i hope you saw that in red? Hypothesis! That is what it remains - and I think that means soomething that is based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.

My friend, you need to do some more work in convincing me that evolution is real.

@ cgift , you sound having few knowledge about Theology.

you got 2 learn more.

kingsikaz:



@ cgift , you sound having few knowledge about Theology.

you got 2 learn more.

This is ridiculous! Was that directed at you in the first instance? You probably could not even comprehend my submission - little wonder your contribution is so watery. You wanted to know people's view of the account of creation or recreation and later came up to smuggle in evolution, my own belief is hinged upon creation and that's why I am all out to debate against evolution. If you are game on the evolution theory then be my guest, otherwise just watch by the sidelines.

@ cgift
d issue is not evolution , it is creation or re-creation. i say some are trying 2 integrate evolution and you are lookin it 4rm theology which u only have few knowledge about.
u dont need 2 shift 4rm d topic, b kool bros.

u need 2 learn more

stay tuned

Hi Kag,

KAG:

Neither.

Lol . . . how're you doing? Been a while _{even nferyn seems to be MIA}

I can see your search still continues. Hmmn, hopefully one day, one very day . . . .

Cheers

_{Had to greet an e-friend, back to topic}

kingsikaz:

@ cgift
d issue is not evolution , it is creation or re-creation. i say some are trying 2 integrate evolution and you are lookin it from theology which u only have few knowledge about.
u don't need 2 shift from d topic, b kool bros.

u need 2 learn more

stay tuned

This guy is just , arrrghhhh! Do you know what theology means at all? I rest my case with you.

cgift:

I want to believe your choice of "neither" in this case means your "opposition" to Creation - That mean you disagree with the claim that Someone took His time to create things literarily.

Yes.

Ok. If that is the case, can you then tell us what the first created (may be evoluted) entity was and how it came into being?

No. The question is not only a strawman, it's irrelevant.

Ok. The reason why this proposition is unfounded is that you are neither here or there. You talk of some deity? Do you know him? What are his attributes? How do you relate with him? How are you even sure he created or "chose evolution" as the process? You then go ahead to advocate evolution:

First, no, my proposition wasn't unfounded: it was based on the acknowledgment of the existence of theistic evolutionists and their views. Also, although I'm not here, I'm there. However, that has little bearing on being able to appropriate the views of different groups of people.

Second, I don't believe there are any deities, so asking about the attributes of any deity becomes moot.

Finally, I was very clearly pointing out the error in what you stated: "Only a fraud will advocate CREATION and also EVOLUTION." That opinion is not only dangerusly wrong, it highlights a strange kind of ignorance. In any case, like I mentioned, many theistic evolutionists, including thos of the Christian variety, believe that evolution was the chosen method for their deity's creation of species. Many of them arrive at that belief through different paths, but the more egenral idea I've encountered is that since the evidence strongly favours evolution, and their god wouldn't be inclined to deception, then it follows that evolution was the method used. That, of course, is clearly just a very brief summary, but it should give you a basic idea of some aspect of the belief.

My question is this: has evolution stopped? What are humans going to evolve to in i don't know how long a time? Do you have answers to these? What trends have been seen or what proofs have you that evolution continues or has the "deity" in question stopped evolution from continuing?

No, evolution hasn't stopped. Humans will evolve into human like creatures. Several lines of evidence exist for the theory of evolution. These include, on the genetic side: related species sharing endogenous retroviral insertions, and in humans, the presence of the fused chromosome number two; on a a mor macroscopic level: instances of observed speciation and fossilised transitionals. I don't believe any deities were involved. To keep with the theme of the thread though, Christians that believe God is/was responsible for it all, believe, he started the process and is letting it run its course. This is different from Intelligent Designers who believe that God keeps tinkering every so often.

You only being presumptious here. For decades and centuries, they have not being able to explain how the first cells came about?

It's decades, not centuries. The scope of abiogenesis is relatively new.

Even the simplest of cells like the Mycoplasma Genitalium among others, have not been able to be unravelled.

Cells are not simple. No organism currently living is simple.

Now tell me, if evolution or phylogenesis advocates sequences that culminated in the basic fundamentals of all living beings i.e., the cells, why is it that they have not been able to create a cell even with abiogenesis? By my understanding, abiogenesis means A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter - i hope you saw that in red? Hypothesis! That is what it remains - and I think that means soomething that is based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.

First, like I mentioned previously, abiogenesis and evolution are two separate concepts. The current conception of the theory of evolution is unlikely to be falsified by any lack of findings by scientists studying abiogenesis.

Secondly, I suspect that you haven't stopped to appreciate the difficulties faced by anyone attempting reproduce life by mimicking what the early Earth must have been like. Remember, the challenge is not just to create cells, but to follow very specific steps to trace what may have happened. I should point out by the way, that you are wrong, Sidney Fox's protocells are a good example of cells being fashioned naturally. However, like I said, that really isn't the challenge.

Finally, yes, the hypotheses within abiogenesis are hypothetical. That, however, doesn't mean they don't follow the scientific method. That is to say, it's not necessarily about lack of evidence, but also about falsifiability. Hypothesis and theory in science tend to differ significantly from the more colloquial understanding of the words.

My friend, you need to do some more work in convincing me that evolution is real.

I don't have to do anything.

ricadelide:

Hi Kag,Lol . . . how're you doing? Been a while _{even nferyn seems to be MIA}

Hey, how are you doing?

I can see your search still continues. Hmmn, hopefully one day, one very day . . . .

Cheers

_{Had to greet an e-friend, back to topic}

We are all searching. Some are just more frank about it than others.

@KAG,

KAG:

Hey, how are you doing?

Very good actually. Hope you're good as well.

We are all searching. Some are just more frank about it than others.

Lol . . . is it about their searching or about what they've found? Heck, what's the purpose of an endless search? There has to be some joy not just in the searching but in the finding as well. And if I may say, some of us are quite frank about what we have found (not that we aint searching for more finds though). However, there's no compulsion (for others) to take our word for it, and sometimes, we can't prove our finds sufficiently over the net.

Re-reading meself: why do i get this feeling that i seemed to place some mumbo up there
Anyways, back to the topic (or side-topic),

Now for a needed DISCLAIMER: @ OP, THIS IS NOT A DIVERSION, at least that's not the intent, its just a point of correction, and my emphasis is particularly on the bible and the God of the bible NOT on evolution

When you (KAG) said this:

Many theistic evolutionists, particularly the Christian ones, do believe that evolution was chosen as the method of creation by some deity or the other.

I let it pass, 'because it seemed to be a deviation of the topic, and since you mentioned "some diety or the other" I took it that you didn't really intend to have previously said "particularly the Christian ones"; obviously there's some contradiction in there. Except you just meant their being "Christian" only in the nominal sense.

However, this statement:

In any case, like I mentioned, many theistic evolutionists, including thos of the Christian variety, believe that evolution was the chosen method for their deity's creation of species.

AND:

To keep with the theme of the thread though, Christians that believe God is/was responsible for it all, believe, he started the process and is letting it run its course.

Now this got me going, because since you decried someone else of ignorance, I think you have not been fair in that regard. While Cgift might have better qualified his statement by restricting it to the Judeo-Christian God, the fact still remains and I seriously wish you'd consider.

Looking at it, which is really ignorant, 'Christians' who read the bible and realize (albeit with some concern for some; who knows) that a cursory reading does not support nor allow for the main themes that characterize yet again a cursory reading of the TOE, or those who with some high degree of intellectual dishonesty, try to reconcile two ends that can never meet? In a very odd way, this kind of assertion reminds me of that weird "atheist Christian" thread and notion.

I'm sure at this point you'd be bracing up to argue that they are not "biblical literalists" but rather take the bible figuratively. That might account for why they'd dismiss the literal biblical account where the flying creatures (birds et al) came BEFORE (at least one day before) reptiles as opposed to the reverse by the TOE. It would account for a dismissal of the earth's creation BEFORE the sun, moon, stars et al, again in CLEAR contradiction to the TOE, the water bodies being created before the land, yet again, as opposed to the reverse propounded by the TOE - I could go on and on. I guess those clear contradictions aren't obvious enough for one to make a categorical statement of an impossibility to reconcile both.

To such assertions (of non-literalness), my question then would be do such people actually accept anything at all as being literal in the bible? Is the WHOLE of the bible merely figurative? Where my concern grows is where it relates to the theme that runs throughout christianity and ties the whole (from Genesis to Revelations) together. I'm talking about death. I'm talking about man. And I'm talking about sin. In other words, in all that dismissal of "literalness" I wonder how such a one would not have dismissed Christianity as a whole and the message of Christ's death on the cross. The whole point of Christianity is that man sinned and death came as a RESULT OF man's sin. This event was so serious that God Himself had to send His Son to DIE as a sort of payment for that sin. How, if I may ask, would one reconcile that with the TOE, where man's coming unto the scene is as a consequence of long-existing death(s), rather than a harbinger thereof? How do TE's profess a Judeo-Christian God who, on the one hand, causes (or is it allows) the animals to die and perish, yet on the other hand, let's man know that the consequence of his own action is the death (that was to have existed before he came)? Isn't it a tad redundant, if not plain foolish, for Jesus to come down from heaven to remedy man's sin and the allegedly consequent death when the very said mechanism of death and survival was his means of creating the said man?

Furthermore, what sort of a God uses a merciless means such as struggle, death, survival of the fittest, and 99.9% non-beneficial mutations as his means of creation and at the end of the day have the audacity to call it "very good"? Is there anything "godly" about the TOE, I'm talking about the process that has been advocated as the mechanism, NOT the beautiful claimed result that we see on the "PLANET EARTH" series I saw last year on Discovery Channel. My arguement isn't that there are no bad things (evil, death etc) in the world, it is AGAINST the notion that such could ever have constituted a mechanism of creation by THE Judeo-Christian God whom we know in (our) experience, furthermore clarified by a written documentation. Political correctness may be desirable for some. However, intellectual honesty is better. Some other 'gods' and some other religions might allow for such inclusions, however, count the Judeo-Christian God out. The mere existence of any such book called 'the bible' precludes any claimed adherent from sneaking in another account of creation, not to talk of one as diametrically opposed to the whole theme of christianity as evolution.

Anybody has the right to believe whatever they want. Theistic evolutionists can believe whatever they like. I can believe that 2 + 2 is equal to 3; perhaps a three year old would take me seriously. In the case of so-called 'christian' TE's, neither true christians nor evolutionists ought to take them seriously. Like cgift said, it is a fraud and, might I add, a high degree of intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Judeo-Christian God CAN or DID make use of the TOE as his "mechanism of creation". I'm aware that many Christians who haven't really considered the issue in-depth could be shaky, I believe to a certain level Rom. 3:4 is apt and sufficient, a more detailed study of both claims and an examination of the evidence (if one is so priviledged) would however IMO be better.

Cheers .

DISCLAIMER #2: again, I'm sorry if some might see this as a diversion - I kind of think it is related in a way. And If you think otherwise, I'm sorry. I won't drag the issue beyond this. Cheers all.

@ last poster

a nice contribution. all reasonable diversions are welcome. we are all here 2 learn more, mr know ALL is not welcome.

@ cgift
you seems 2 b too proud. try 2 b kool n precise.
my guy, all reactions are welcome.
you ask me knowing anything about THEOLOGY. i think i need 2 sit u down and talk some theological senses in2 you brain cos me get lots of stuffs on that. but dat is not d issue. no one is blowing his trumpet here.

bros you need 2 learn more.

kingsikaz:


you ask me knowing anything about THEOLOGY. i think i need 2 sit u down and talk some theological senses in2 you brain because me get lots of stuffs on that. but that is not d issue. no one is blowing his trumpet here.

bros you need 2 learn more.

Oya start talking the theological senses. You can blow and even overblow your trumpet. It is allowed.

ricadelide:

@KAG,Very good actually. Hope you're good as well.

I'm alive.

Lol . . . is it about their searching or about what they've found? Heck, what's the purpose of an endless search? There has to be some joy not just in the searching but in the finding as well. And if I may say, some of us are quite frank about what we have found (not that we aint searching for more finds though). However, there's no compulsion (for others) to take our word for it, and sometimes, we can't prove our finds sufficiently over the net.

I agree. For the first question, I'd say it's about both the searching and the finding. I totally agree with what you've stated, though.

Re-reading meself: why do i get this feeling that i seemed to place some mumbo up there

From my perspective, it wasn't mumbo-jumbo.

Anyways, back to the topic (or side-topic),

Now for a needed DISCLAIMER: @ OP, THIS IS NOT A DIVERSION, at least that's not the intent, its just a point of correction, and my emphasis is particularly on the bible and the God of the bible NOT on evolution

When you (KAG) said this:
I let it pass, 'because it seemed to be a deviation of the topic, and since you mentioned "some diety or the other" I took it that you didn't really intend to have previously said "particularly the Christian ones"; obviously there's some contradiction in there. Except you just meant their being "Christian" only in the nominal sense.

No, I meant Christian of whatever stripe that accepts evolution.

However, this statement:

To keep with the theme of the thread though, Christians that believe God is/was responsible for it all, believe, he started the process and is letting it run its course.

AND:Now this got me going, because since you decried someone else of ignorance, I think you have not been fair in that regard. While Cgift might have better qualified his statement by restricting it to the Judeo-Christian God, the fact still remains and I seriously wish you'd consider.

Looking at it, which is really ignorant, 'Christians' who read the bible and realize (albeit with some concern for some; who knows) that a cursory reading does not support nor allow for the main themes that characterize yet again a cursory reading of the TOE, or those who with some high degree of intellectual dishonesty, try to reconcile two ends that can never meet? In a very odd way, this kind of assertion reminds me of that weird "atheist Christian" thread and notion.

The ignorance is stating a blinkered opinion that Christians who accept evolution are frauds. I believe you're wrong in claiming that evolution and the Genesis account can't be reconciled. More on that later. Interestingly, I've met [another?] atheist Chritian. To be more specific, the term she uses is non-theistic Christian.

I'm sure at this point you'd be bracing up to argue that they are not "biblical literalists" but rather take the bible figuratively. That might account for why they'd dismiss the literal biblical account where the flying creatures (birds et al) came BEFORE (at least one day before) reptiles as opposed to the reverse by the TOE. It would account for a dismissal of the earth's creation BEFORE the sun, moon, stars et al, again in CLEAR contradiction to the TOE, the water bodies being created before the land, yet again, as opposed to the reverse propounded by the TOE - I could go on and on. I guess those clear contradictions aren't obvious enough for one to make a categorical statement of an impossibility to reconcile both.

To such assertions (of non-literalness), my question then would be do such people actually accept anything at all as being literal in the bible? Is the WHOLE of the bible merely figurative? Where my concern grows is where it relates to the theme that runs throughout christianity and ties the whole (from Genesis to Revelations) together. I'm talking about death. I'm talking about man. And I'm talking about sin. In other words, in all that dismissal of "literalness" I wonder how such a one would not have dismissed Christianity as a whole and the message of Christ's death on the cross. The whole point of Christianity is that man sinned and death came as a RESULT OF man's sin. This event was so serious that God Himself had to send His Son to DIE as a sort of payment for that sin.

I should start by pointing out that if I was a Christian, the only sensible option of me would be believing that the Genesis account wasn't written to be taken literally; however, there are people that have attempted to get a reading of evolution from it. I don't agree with them.

Now, I think you're making a fundamental error in implying that those who one section of the Bible, particularly a portion of Genesis, figuratively are bound to take the rest the book the same way. The fact is, no Christian in their right mind reads the entire Bible literally. Moreover, the poetic language the Creation and Eden accounts were written, imply that it was something that was meant to be interpreted symbolically. What's more, several scholars, like St. Augustine and Jewish Rabbis, did just that.

Furthermore, you raise a good point in asking about how to reconcle Jesus' sacrifice with a figurative reading of Genesis. My opinion is that, if we're to accept that Jesus' death was indeed a sacrifice for humans, then we have to realise that Adam's death isn't a referal to a physical death, but a spiritual one. Where Adam appropriately means man. So, yes, man [Adam] sinned and sins and dies, but in the Christian tradition Jesus resurrects man from the sin of spiritual death.

How, if I may ask, would one reconcile that with the TOE, where man's coming unto the scene is as a consequence of long-existing death(s), rather than a harbinger thereof?

Death existed before humanity. I don't remember the Bible stating that death didn't exist prior to humans. In any case, I'd advise not to read the Genesis acoount a literal historical account.

How do TE's profess a Judeo-Christian God who, on the one hand, causes (or is it allows) the animals to die and perish, yet on the other hand, let's man know that the consequence of his own action is the death (that was to have existed before he came)? Isn't it a tad redundant, if not plain foolish, for Jesus to come down from heaven to remedy man's sin and the allegedly consequent death when the very said mechanism of death and survival was his means of creating the said man?

Just to reiterate what I've stated above, the death wouldn't be physical, but spiritual. I can't find where God blames [hu]man[s] for the death of animals too. Jesus didn't come to remedy humans from physical death (that or he's done a very bad job of it), he came to redeem humans from the "wages of sin" which is death: a non-physical demise.

Furthermore, what sort of a God uses a merciless means such as struggle, death, survival of the fittest, and 99.9% non-beneficial mutations as his means of creation and at the end of the day have the audacity to call it "very good"? Is there anything "godly" about the TOE, I'm talking about the process that has been advocated as the mechanism, NOT the beautiful claimed result that we see on the "PLANET EARTH" series I saw last year on Discovery Channel. My arguement isn't that there are no bad things (evil, death etc) in the world, it is AGAINST the notion that such could ever have constituted a mechanism of creation by THE Judeo-Christian God whom we know in (our) experience, furthermore clarified by a written documentation.

You know, you'd make a good atheist. I know that you aren't arguing that there are no bad things in the world, but you may as well have. To put it in another way, why would an omniscient God allow Her beloved children to go through so much pain, turmoil, unnecessary diseases and death? Why did She have to go through a long process of killing and maiming (like in Noah's days, if you're a literalist) before she finally sent Jesus to redeem people? Why toy with Job? I guess I could answer with something glib like, well, She's God, but that seems unsatisfactory.

In my opinion, there are no easy answers, but it would seem to me that the mechanism of evolution wouldn't have be intended to be so painful. I guess the process would be good from a certin perspective because it's a mechanism that's self-sufficient and magical - in the limited sense of the word. In fact, I really don't know. I suppose that explains why I've never been satisfied with the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.

Political correctness may be desirable for some. However, intellectual honesty is better. Some other 'gods' and some other religions might allow for such inclusions, however, count the Judeo-Christian God out. The mere existence of any such book called 'the bible' precludes any claimed adherent from sneaking in another account of creation, not to talk of one as diametrically opposed to the whole theme of christianity as evolution.

I wholeheartedly disagree. It's intellectually honest, in my opinion, to, as many non-literalists state, look at both of God's words: the "real" world and the Bible. Reality indicates that evolution operates in real world, therefore, it stands to reason that several people must be interpreting the bible wrong. By the way, that same process was applied to the reading of Biblical verses that indicated geocentricism. Moreover, like I have stated, even prior to the formulation of the theory of evolution, several scholars were known to dispute the literalism of the Genesis account.

Anybody has the right to believe whatever they want. Theistic evolutionists can believe whatever they like. I can believe that 2 + 2 is equal to 3; perhaps a three year old would take me seriously. In the case of so-called 'christian' TE's, neither true christians nor evolutionists ought to take them seriously.

Um, many Christians that accept evolution are True Christians. Besides, I don't see different interpretations of Genesis as a salvation issue. Salvation isn't determined by how one reads Genesis.

Like cgift said, it is a fraud and, might I add, a high degree of intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Judeo-Christian God CAN or DID make use of the TOE as his "mechanism of creation". I'm aware that many Christians who haven't really considered the issue in-depth could be shaky, I believe to a certain level Rom. 3:4 is apt and sufficient, a more detailed study of both claims and an examination of the evidence (if one is so priviledged) would however IMO be better.

Cheers .

If Romans 3:4 is right, then a literal interpretation of Genesis can't be true from a Christian evolutionist's point of view. To think God could be deceiving us mortals by planting so many collaborative lines of evidence is too far out a thought.

DISCLAIMER #2: again, I'm sorry if some might see this as a diversion - I kind of think it is related in a way. And If you think otherwise, I'm sorry. I won't drag the issue beyond this. Cheers all.

I think it's related.

some believe that the Biblical line, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was without "form' and 'void', Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

I think the text are so clear on the issue of creation. You may beleive what you like to beleive but the truth is that: God created the heaven and the earth. That is the begining of creation. The other one reported how God view what he created and narrated the improvement thereof and on and on until god rested on the 7th day.

I hope you grab the gist Crital clear man

@pilgrim,

I'm persuaded that Genesis 1 v 1 declares the creation; while verse 2 highlights another epoch.

Sis I'm curious. By 'another epoch' do you mean with a time gap between, and/or a re-creation, or something like what Dake (I assume you are aware of the man) advocat[b]ed[/b]? (he's late) For you to say you're persuaded I guess you must have looked at both sides and chose one over the other.

I'm presently of a contrary opinion and would love to learn from you. Cheers .