Yes and no. It depends upon which version of the “On the Origin of the Species” you pick up. If I remember correctly, in the first, Darwin, a Pastor’s kid, attributes his theories to God’s providence. That would make it compatible with the Catholic idea of “theistic” evolution.
and then looked at this a new way
Man of Gen1:1
Certainly does not require that.
Look up the scientific definition of “macroevolution”. One species splitting into two similar species is exactly the definition of macroevolution.
Heard this where exactly? Can you provide a citation?niceatheist:
Explain it? Who am I to explain why God created what He did? This is like asking, “Why did God choose to make the sky blue and grass green and a platypus?”
Do nested hierarchies rule out a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account?
I heard that not all forms of life fall into nested hierarchies, anyway.
Why would the beginning of the universe (or whatever came before it, if that concept even has any meaning) be bound by causality. Causality is a feature of the universe we know today. Pushing back beyond whatever constitutes the “start” (if there was a start) may involve an entirely different set of physical principles. Perhaps the universe had no beginning at all, but rather when we talk of the beginning, we’re really talking about the observable universe.
This just goes to show there really isn’t a literal interpretation of Genesis at all.IWantGod:
You are making erroneous assumptions about what I believe. I outlined in post 402 my literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe it implies the planet earth and most of the universe were created before the “six days” of creation. So there were two different stages of creation. Don’t ask me why - it wasn’t my idea. There could be a huge gap between between Genesis 1:1 and the “six days”. When went on it that time we aren’t told. Maybe there was some other creation that God hasn’t told us about (and why should He? He tells us only what He wants us to know).
Everything God does is supposed to make sense to us humans? Good luck with that one.
How did something come from nothing ?Techno2000:
Why would the beginning of the universe (or whatever came before it, if that concept even has any meaning) be bound by causality. Causality is a feature of the universe we know today. Pushing back beyond whatever constitutes the “start” (if there was a start) may involve an entirely different set of physical principles. Perhaps the universe had no beginning at all, but rather when we talk of the beginning, we’re really talking about the observable universe.
I don’t know. I don’t even know if there ever was “nothing”. It could be the concept of “nothing” is meaningless and has nothing to do with reality at all.
Ask a cosmologist, not a biologist. Biologists start with the sun and earth already in place.
