Evolution

First God creates plants, animals, beasts... Then God takes dust from the ground, forms Adam, and once Adam is in a desirable form, breathes life into his nostrils. The form exists before the breath of life was placed in Adam. It is interesting that dust from the ground would also be rich in microbial life. From microbe, to the form of man, and then a breath of life (soul). If this is an illustration of evolution from simple form to more complex, this shows that a long chain of creatures existed until a form emerged that was the perfected vessel to bear the soul. This hinges on the idea that Adam translates as mankind, and that Adam himself is a metaphor for a people.



Impossible accidents? You mean God playing pool and landing 20 billiard balls with one shot? There is no reason to believe that God could not guide an evolutionary process directly along the way either by making subtle changes that push the process to where it needs to go. There is nothing in the science that says that God had no part in the process. The science just comments on the observation that the process exists. If someone has said that science says "there is no God" they have twisted the truth and speak falsely.

Genesis 3:20
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living".

To be honest I'm not sure that Adam giving his wife a name has anything to do with the subject of evolution.

And there is no reason not to believe the Gap theory which would disprove all of the "we evolved from monkees" nonsense.

You can choose to prefer G=L/P=F, but that does not remove the fact that G=F/P=L is also internally consistent.

Based on G=F/P=L, mankind formed from the life that existed in dust (microscopic organisms), not monkeys. And that concept is consistent with evolutionary theory.

Glad you called it what it is. A theory that has remained unproven since Darwin thought it up.

Your interpretation that Genesis is literal is also a theory and is unproven, as you say.

You either believe scripture or you dont. Its not a theory its the Word of God.

Your interpretation that Genesis is literal is also a theory and is unproven, as you say.

And there is no reason not to believe the Gap theory which would disprove all of the "we evolved from monkees" nonsense.

Were the parables that Jesus spoke of literal? Metaphor and figurative language exists in the Bible. Interpreting something as figurative does not mean that you do not believe scripture.

Is Psalm 90:4 literal?

Some parts of Scripture are indeed figurative. The is contextual evidence in the majority of those passages. Genesis 1-3 is not among the figurative passages.

I wonder if anyone was around to observe God creating things. That doesn't generally stop "creation scientists" bleating on interminably about that.

I am with almost all the way here but Christians have to accept some of the blame. If they continue to promote anti-science silliness it's hardly surprising that many scientists get somewhat alienated.

I notice you've side-stepped my point. Well done.

So you don't need observed evidence for the things you believe but you feel justified to pontificate on what evidence other people must have to justify their beliefs even though you have yourself happily and proudly said you don't feel it necessary or even desirable to learn anything about what they believe or why they believe it? I seem to detect a flaw somewhere in that logic.

It's not out of context, either Genesis 1 is figurative or Psalm 90:4 is figurative. You can choose to interpret (hermeneutic/exegesis) that Psalm 90:4 is figurative, but it is not a necessarily interpretation. I'm not proposing that it is necessarily either case, but we cannot reduce to only one of those interpretations at the expense of the other (without further reasoning that compels one interpretation over the other).

Thomas Aquinas often approached questions in that manner: first demonstrate internal consistency of an interpretation, and then demonstrate why that interpretation is more compelling than other competing, internally consistent, interpretations. I have a lot of appreciation for that approach.

So far I agree that Gen=literal/Psa=figurative is internally consistent, but I content that Gen=figurative/Psa=literal is also internally consistent. The next question is how to demonstrate which hermeneutic/exegesis is more compelling. I am completely open to changing my mind given the right scripture, but so far I find G=F/P=L more compelling. In either case whether G=L/P=F or G=F/P=L, it does not rule out the concept of future macroevolution, the question pertains more to models that apply to past events. In the end there is no reason to commit definitively to either interpretation. One may leave it simply as a mystery if one so chooses.

Psalm 90:4 is figurative. That is plain from two pieces of evidence. Firstly, the word, "like" indicates that it is a simile which is a form of figurative language. Secondly, the verse contains two different comparisons.

.Genesis 1-3 is figurative.

This is your interpretation. Your interpretation is internally consistent, but so is the interpretation that Genesis 1-3 is figurative.