None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

Introduction

The account of creation is not disputed by the world in general, but is ignored or assigned zero probability. There are some clear areas that creationists dispute the scientific version, and where they also mis-represent the scriptural canon on the basis it is "almost right". Likewise I end with an example; that my interpretation of the creation account leads to something at which men may scoff - it seems fantasy, even though a flood from rainwater over the whole earth is fantasy also, and to many.

It only makes sense then to be consistent - and to do so sparingly on the basis that the account may switch from similitude to historical fact in a matter of a verse. Science is not so far from creationism as may be thought: I have no argument over timing, indeed I have no argument against what remains in the earth after the flood of Noah's day: However I do have an argument that does not conflict with scripture - is that not preferable?

Objections To Evolution
After such an interpretation of the biblical account of creation in Genesis, there is little that remains that may be objections against evolution. We examine the "first cause" of life in terms of the argument against intelligent design, an infinite regress. A similar argument shows that however life formed it was created - despite the apparent theory of evolution. The bible names the causes of apparent evolution in the creation account as "seas" the future of which life lives within. Could we relate such a "chaotic" start to the primordial soup, or God's own creative hand? We may even if a finite regress of evolution appears to be the case.

Seven Days And Not Seven Ages
I examine the biblical creation account's six days with the order of evolution, the idea that the six days are six epochs as well as the common more literal interpretation. Something is wrong in both these cases: Whereas with my own interpretation there is a more direct analogy to the Sabbath of Jesus Christ. I also touch on the existence of God before His creation: It can only be described as a meaningless question, as to ask what was there.

The Deep
This page consists of some ideas or opinions that I had when considering the creation account - particularly as it comes to explaining what existed before creation. The trinity model is a good one for explaining how God could exist everywhere and forever before creation - with the lack of its presence, or as we know it "space-time". I also touch upon what was before creation in the beginning, and how the trinitarian model appears to hold up in the creation account.

No Water Jacket For The Earth
A popular idea amongst Christian creationists is the idea of a protective sheath of water for the earth that protected life from UV rays as well as supplied all the water for the flood of Noah's day. This is simply a nonsense and does not equate to the detail of the creation account in genesis. It is best committed to the scrap heap.

A Mist To Water The Ground
A companion to creationism for many that hold to the water jacket theory is the idea that there was no rain until the great flood. Without the water jacket and with the simple application of scripture we see that the bible states this is just not so. It may be tempting to think of paradise as a giant greenhouse with all manner of supersized fruits and an incredible amount of oxygen - this is appealing for the closeness of God's creative intent in time, but it is not what the scripture states.

Why Plants Are Not Alive To God
The creation account leads directly to the concept of the eternal soul, and that God does not force His will on all those animals He made in a manner that would make His creations mere marionettes. Likewise there is a level of obstinacy in science that rivals even the atheists contempt of God. There are areas of scientific research that were God to be shown to all, rival even the atheists objection to evil in creation: Why when man plays God in so vile a manner is it "progress", and when the divine acts it is "incompetence" or "malevolence". The account in the least shows that all animal life has some form of free will, rather than only man. As you leave this page consider that if God simply can not communicate His laws to any creature except man whom only writes them down - why then is evil (in the form of suffering) solely His fault? Animals in the account could eat plants, (we suppose) but they chose not to. (If we lump conscious life into only the "non-plant" category.)

The Order Of The Addition Of Life
The order of creation in the two accounts, the first chapter and the second (of Eden) has lead many creationists to declare that there is a strata of creation, of racial supremacy or preference between "sixth day man" and "Adamic" man. There is no such discrepancy between the accounts and no such preference. God states He brought animals into formation (substantive existence) within the ground, (contingent upon a fossil record) as opposed to forming Adam of the "dust" of the earth (contingent upon God only). Whereas both fall into our conception of "earth" the distinction between Adam and his species and the other life on earth is ascertained: there is no fossil record for the evolution of man.

Any Alien Life Elsewhere?
I discuss briefly the possibility of alien life in the genesis accounts. It makes greater sense to believe in fallen angels than it does aliens; were such "humanlike" aliens (as in the nephilim account also called "sixth day men") to visit earth we would have seen them more regularly and they would be able to interbreed with man. The genesis' second account shows that no such inter-species breeding was possible for man with any other of the creatures God had made on earth. Chances are, that would exclude created "beings" from space or from elsewhere also. I also comment on the scientific opinion that conditions on the Earth in some places seem to state that life could almost certainly evolve elsewhere. (In fact it should do so where it finds it easiest.) This discussion makes up the bulk of the page.

The Flood And A Change Of Physics
The flood of Noah is a much derided concept, yet the new testament states that even when men scoff, we are reassured that the God we worship is omnipotent and has reserved this world to head for judgement. The implications for the meaning of the terms "fountains" and "windows" etc. in the text show an expenditure of vast divine power - more so than a simple yet lengthy rainstorm. Peter warns us with much foresight that the fear of God shown by Noah was enough to rescue Him, and that likewise such scoffing shows the scoffer to be ungodly rather than mistaken.


Continue To Next Section

Continue To Next Page

Return To Previous Section


'