Is macroevolution true?

[One Eyed Jack]

But Genesis 2:4 has at least 4 days of "creation week" occurring in a single day!

A single day with four evenings and mornings? That makes a lot of sense...

BUT that means that Genesis 2:4 has "the heavens and the earth" created in 24 hours.

I suppose every time you hear the phrase "back in the day," you're thinking about a single day?

Not a "creation week". Of course, Genesis 2 gives you other problems, such as the order of creation does not match what is said for "creation week".

Chapter two is specifically describing what God did on the sixth day in the Garden of Eden.

Also, we have 2 accounts of the Flood. They are intertwined, but they also contradict each other.

If "whole world" can mean "Luke's world" in Luke 2:1, why can't "whole world" mean Tigris-Euphrates Valley in Genesis 6-8? It is their "whole world" and now we are dealing with a local flood, not a worldwide one.

If it was just a local flood, then why would Noah have spent 100 years building an ark, when he could have just moved? Even on foot, a person can travel a pretty long way in 100 years -- certainly far enough to get out of the danger zone. And what was the point of bringing along the animals in that case?

Again, God's Creation absolutely says that there was no worldwide Flood.

Then how did all those dead things get buried in sediment layers, and why are they found all over the world?

 

[bob b]

. But when you think it is a succesfull strategy to say that I am an unbeliever, you do not hesitate to do so.

You seem to be an unbeliever in Genesis six day creation and the Flood, which makes you an unbeliever in the Bible.

So are you going to post those other portions of scripture that you claim support your literalist view of the creation account in Genesis?

I'm busy right now with lucaspa. Perhaps later, but why didn't you comment on what 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:5 says?

BTW, I don't consider myself a "literalist", only one who believes in what scripture says plainly.

 

[Vision in Verse]

I believed in evolution most of my adult life, but 23 years ago while reading about DNA it suddenly dawned on me that the idea was "absurdity squared".

So, 23 years ago... you got confused about an aspect of evolution and DNA and never tried to resolve that confusion.

BTW, the idea of a "local" flood is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The waters of the Flood rose for months and abated over an equally long period.

You seem to be denying that floods occur, which is totally wrong seeing as we have observed local floods in our lifetimes...

 

[Vision in Verse]

You seem to be an unbeliever in Genesis six day creation and the Flood, which makes you an unbeliever in the Bible.

If I don't believe part of something, it doesn't mean I reject the whole thing. Even I believe the Bible has wise morals and believe in most of the eventst that occurred.

 

[noguru]

You seem to be an unbeliever in Genesis six day creation and the Flood, which makes you an unbeliever in the Bible.



I'm busy right now with lucaspa. Perhaps later, but why didn't you comment on what 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:5 says?

BTW, I don't consider myself a "literalist", only one who believes in what scripture says plainly.

It's OK Bob, I know you can't be bothered with logic. Why do I need to comment? Are you unclear as to what Peter 2:5 or 3:5 is saying?