Science + Creation

[Drich]

Sorry, it's kind of late here and my brain is not cooperating so much right now. I don't know if I've got it wrong, but it sounds to me like you agree with the video?

I do not. Because a day is a constant amount of time no matter how it is measured. I understand a day does not have to be a 24 hour period. If a day was 100,000,000,000 years then all 6 days need to account for the same amount of time. Even in this theory the further you get away from the epicenter of the singularity that was the big bang. time would have passed at a different rate making a day shorter by a few hundred million years. If this is the case then subdividing up the "pots" into the equivalent of days is in error. Because again a day is a consistent/relevant measure of time. and the further out we get the less concentration of time we have in a "pot"/day. Because of this the theory falls in on itself.

The video is saying that the 6 days aren't 24 hour periods but varying amounts of time because of time itself not being constant.

But even from the perspective of God a day in all examples is constant

Ah yes, I think I remember reading this from you. Were you saying that the Garden was basically running at a different time rate than the rest of the universe?

No, God created a preserve/picture at the beginning of time. It was a picture/Garden Included all that life had to offer man made in the image of God, at the beginning of time. This picture was of what life looked like 5000 years ago (at the fall of man.) So when the fall happened there was a seamless transition between the exodus of the garden and the integration of the rest of the world.
Everything outside of the garden from the beginning of time progressed on it own schedule.

But the thing is that there's no traction between reality and Genesis. I agree with you that evolution would fit into Genesis as you have explained, but the two still feel 'detached' in a way. It's kind of like having two jigsaw puzzle pieces that seem to fit together but don't interlock perfectly with them touching 100%. Rather it's like the 'holey' piece and the 'fist' piece (I'm referring to the features that make them interlock) have space between them. So we could very well change a few assumptions about the interpretation of Genesis and it could still look like reality and Genesis fit together but there seems to be no real connection.

If the picture you are trying to assemble does not include God then you will find reasons to exclude key pieces of the puzzle. However if you are looking to assemble the finished product no matter what it looks like, by using all that was made available then you will not know what you have till all has been used and assembled and you take a step back and look at it. When I started this bit with genesis it was not a way to include God into anything. It was an honest look at everything I was told about orgins.

To me it seems you are trying to reconcile Genesis by only using the information designed to separate God from creation. If this is the case then know 1/2 of all your puzzle pieces will not fit because a mainstay of that philosophy is to separate God from your own ability to reason and process the information provided.