The Genesis account is nonliteral clearly. I don't see any problem with reading it like any other creation myth and appreciating the language used. I do see a problem with denying scientific reality and accepting what amounts to an ancient story, that only attempts to explain things people of the time could not comprehend due to their lack of advancements.
I agree. There are however a number of people who like to take everything literally and have for some reason understood evolution to rule out 'the hand of God'. Those people are welcome to take the bible literally. It's important to clarify to them what evolution is actually about rather than the garbled non-sense often touted, and how it isn't at odds with the bible.
The change you are talking about implies improvement.
Not in a 'better', more sophisticated sense, only in a 'more suited to an environment' sense. Evolution assumes the environment is also changing, so it's not always an improvement in the long term.
Micro-evolution is obvious and fitting within God's plan for variation within a kind. We have multiple variations within the human species as well as virtually every animal and plant. But these do not give rise to greater or more complex things as the Theory of Evolution would have us believe. We use this capacity for breeding and hybridization purposes.
Very few biologist or textbooks distinguish between micro and macro evolution, it's just a neat grouping for the lay person. Both are a result of the same processes because of the same causes, just on different scales. Only creationists really use the terms to indicate that they are different processes, because there is overwhelming evidence of micro evolution. If there is such a divide, where does it sit?
A day is a day is a day especially when described as evening and morning. The luminaries were designed to give light upon the earth and to govern night and day as well as seasons.
If the play of the sun on the earth were different, you could still have an evening and morning. Just as the time between sunrise to sunset varies hugely over the year and from place to place on earth. It doesn't mean that the day had to last 24 hours. Afterall, a year, 365.24 days is a great number to have been intelligently designed.
The Garden was specifically fashioned for Adam and Eve. The implication is that it was made very very soon after they were created.
Again, we're assuming we know the mind of God. There is no reason it couldn't have taken time for this to 'grow'.
Evolution describes how organisms change over time.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Am i mistaken or does it say here God created man from dust of the ground and the breath of life. I dont see any apes in there. Its quite easy to believe in God ,not so easy to believe Him it seems. The agenda behind evolution is simple ,you dont need a Creator if you believe nothing was created.If one part of the bible is full of lies ,then can we trust it at all ?
OK, so exactly how did the 'dust' change into man. It just 'jumped' from one to the other? Did God get a big mold and sculpt man? Did the dust magically turn into everything that makes up a human? The bible just doesn't explain what happened in between. Is it relevant to the story of creation?
Evolution indicates that life came from the same matter as on earth. Evolution doesn't explain the difference between inanimate matter and living organisms - this could be taken to be the 'breath of life'. Evolution could well be guided by the 'hand of God' - it doesn't state that it isn't.
