Creation

Your question is not clear... What God is in question?

Ignoring that.... It depends on what you believe. Here are some basic examples.

Monotheism: The god of everything.

Polytheism: The god of something... there are many.

Atheism: A fictional character.

How about the God Almighty? Creator of all that was, is and will be. In what circumstance would it be acceptable to question that God?

God created the world of the souls, including what you call hell (Rashi and other commentaries on Isaiah 30:33, quoting the ancient midrash).

The existence of a spiritual place or places in which the souls of the dead are treated in accordance with their behavior when alive (reward or punishment), is a tradition of mankind, which finds expression (in differing details) in various religions. It cannot be conclusively proven as long as we're alive; and that's the whole point: God tests us as to whether we will live in a way that demonstrates that we're aware of His presence, even though His presence is not readily visible.
We hold it to be evident that an infinitely wise Creator, whose wisdom is vastly manifest (for example) in the wonders of our bodies, would not be so unwise as to neglect unfinished business. If a tyrant "escapes judgment" by swallowing a painless poison, to our mind it is axiomatic that his tribulations have just begun. God is just (Deuteronomy 32:4).See also:

The afterlife

God exists

Strictly speaking the Patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so in the narrowest sense Joseph was not a Patriarch.

The content of the story of Isaac is often very similar to that of Abraham, and there are even similarities between the narrative of Jacob and the narrative of Isaac, whereas the narrative of Joseph is very different. Presumably, however, what is being sought are underlying, essential differences.

Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) points out that, whereas the Bible has God talking to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God never talks to Joseph. The text frequently talks about God, using the name Yahweh (YHWH), but whenever Joseph talks about God, he uses another name, Elohim. It is as if Joseph's words come from a different tradition. Elohimcan also mean 'gods', depending on the context and whether the associated verb is singular or plural, but sometimes Kass says that Joseph's words could be interpreted either way - he is talking about the Hebrew God or more generally about the Egyptian gods. English translations assume that God is meant.

All the lifespans of the main characters in Genesis involve numerology patterns, based around the number 17. The Patriarchs were the most important of all the main characters and this is probably why they share the most elegant pattern in their lifespans1. Joseph lived to 110 years, which does not conform to the numerological pattern of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but is consistent with the pattern for Levi, Moses and Joshua2. This demonstrates that Joseph was never thought of a one of the Patriarchs.

Footnote

1In the lifespans of the Patriarchs, it should be noted that:

• Each lifespan involves a perfect square (5, 6 and 7) in a numeric series,
• The third factor also forms a series (7, 5, 3)
• In each case the sum of the factors is 17.

Name

Lifespan

Pattern

Abraham

175

(5x5) x 7

Isaac

180

(6x6) x 5

Jacob

147

(7x7) x 3

2The numerological pattern for lifespans for main characters after the Patriarchs are simpler but nevertheless remarkably consistent, always involving the number 17:

Name

Lifespan

Pattern

Joseph

110

5x5 + 5x17

Levi

137

7x5 + 6x17

Moses

120

7x5 + 5x17

Joshua

110

5x5 + 5x17

William Paley, of the 18th century, propounded the following; What if someone were to find a watch in a forest? A watch is complex and apparently tuned to fulfil a function; that of telling time. Paley extended the idea of complexity to living organisms and how functionally-fulfilling he presumed their complex structures to be. He claimed that a designer was obvious in the case of the watch and, due to such complexity in living organisms, a designer should be necessary for them as well.

This designer became known as the 'intelligent designer' in the idea called Intelligent Design. The idea is that living organisms are too complex to have arisen in any form other than their present one, the one that fulfills the present function that organism and all its organs fulfill.

Later, the Theory of Evolution, generated by Charles Darwin, disposed greatly of any Intelligent Design notions. But there was still creationism, the age-old explanation of life's structure and diversity that preceeded both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Many creationists have always been negative of evolution and have tried to force creationism upon school curricula to remove evolution from classrooms. When creationism made no effect, 'creation science' was introduced as a 'more scientific' way to combat evolution in the classroom.

Intelligent Design these days has morphed from Paley's apparently earnest and innocent suggestion of 'complexity requires design' to a great attack on evolution. Michael Behe found backing for Intelligent Design, saying that biochemical pathways were too complex to go designerless. (He particularly pointed to the immune system.) Intelligent Design is now the replacement of 'creation science' since that didn't take off in school curricula. It insinuates that it is a 'scientific' creation-like argument. To gain approval, Intelligent Design denies any religiousness, denies the 'Intelligent Designer' is God or any god in any way. It also claims the 'Intelligent Designer' to be 'undetectable' and presumably supernatural.

Intelligent Design is in fact, not only a curriculum-pushing 'theory', but a political movement, instigating the 2005 Dover district court cases. The explicit goal seems to be to extirpate evolution from schools. One wonders if Intelligent Design advocates want to expurgate the Theory of Evolution from science and society altogether. Perhaps many do. Intelligent Design shows the same disapproval to evolution that creationism and 'creation science' do. The judge of the 2005 court cases did identify a religious life-force behind the Intelligent Design advocates within the court case. Intelligent Design is simply creationism in disguise.

Notice that at no point along the way has anyone evaluated Intelligent Design and certainly not the proponents themselves to see if it stands up to evolution. The Theory of Evolution is still as robust as ever.

Evolution has evidence, while creation only has the Bible, a book written by men no matter how inspired they might have been. Critics of evolutionary theory used to point to the lack of transitional fossils in the evolutionary record but transitional fossils have gradually been discovered, demonstrating just how one species evolves into its successor species.

Creation is the view that God created things just as they are, with no change. Yet countless fossils, and now the evidence of DNA, prove without doubt that evolution has been going on for nearly four billion years. The ancestors and near-relatives of modern humans have been found and studied.

Living things sometimes seem to exhibit evidence of design, but this is really only evidence that natural selection has promoted the most effective organisms. Evolution can not reasonably be denied and therefore is the stronger case.

The manmade idea called the Theory of Evolution had its heyday in the Age of Enlightenment of the 19th and 20th Centuries. With advancements in the fields of science, this theory is being challenged on multiple fronts. Today, there is much debate on fundamental laws governing the entire universe. This is the Anthropic Principle: Many in the fields of mathematics and physics agree that from the very beginning - the Big Bang of some 15 billion years ago - these fundamental laws had to already be in place, and set exactly, to allow our universe to exist the way it does in our time - with us humans here. Indeed, mathematically, it is beyond improbability that this universe of ours would randomly come into existence with just the right properties to allow humans to exist. Life therefore requires a Lawgiver.

On the biological front, scientists are finding that intelligent design exists in everything they examine. In my school days, the simple cell was just that - an organism of matter with some vaguely identifiable parts within. Today, under very strong microscopes, we can see that the cell is a complex information-processing machine with tens of thousands of organelles and vastly complex protein molecules, each arranged in finely-tuned algorithms of communication and synthesis. And our human bodies contain some 60 trillion of these, which store information in DNA, replicated also in various forms of RNA, following the mathematical laws of information. To many, this shows Intelligent Design requiring a Designer and not random evolutionary change.

Just consider the human eye, which Charles Darwin, who fathered the modern theory of evolution, admitted that such complex organs as the eye would be difficult to explain using his theory. Or how about creating life from non-life as scientists have been attempting for decades now. Most have come to the conclusion that the law of Biogenesis is correct. Life can only come from life and requires a life-giver or Creator.

To conclude, one should also ask, how does evolution explain the mystery of human consciousness? Why do we know we know? Or how about dreams/visions or even the modern phenomenon of NDEs - near death experience. Without taking into account the God-given "Spirit in Man" (see Job 32:8 and 1 Corinthians 2:11), it is impossible IMHO. Yet rest assured, there will always be some scientists who, not wanting to believe in God, will remain determined to come up with some explanation which excludes Divine creation. Believers call these "fanciful theories" which attempt to explain the complexities of life. Reading most/all of these simply requires a huge leap in logic as they assume a mathematically improbable event "just happened to happen." For me then, Creation has the much stronger case.

It depends on the tradition of the worshiper.

Answer 1

No, God completed His creation in six days and rested on the seventh day. That was all there was.

Answer 2

Yes. Judaism holds that world is continually recreated and held in existence by God. God is also responsible for the creation of each new form of life and the meshing of souls with bodies in all newborns.

How can one be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? With an ease that almost borders on the ridiculous. In general, Christians don't have to give up a single thing within their faith to accept evolution as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES). MES is the current "state of the art" construct that accounts for all the findings made up to now as regards evolution. Those findings, by the way, include a veritable mountain of hard data that enjoys input from a number of other scientific disciplines as well as the expected contributions of paleoanthropologists and modern anthropologists, who in turn draw on such fields as linguistics and genetics. No thinking and believing Christian is phased by what is known about life on earth and the manner in which it developed. The tons of evidence unearthed up to now are as nothing to his faith. Furthermore, he is unafraid of what may be discovered next, proved next. He could even be said to be excited in anticipation of the future and what it holds as regards illuminating the path down which man has come.

And, other than his faith, he has a reason to not bat an eye at science and what it shows us about the past. MES has absolutely no physical evidence to account for the appearance of life on earth. None. There are only theories. There is no conflict with Christian belief because there is nothing "provable" that contradicts it.

About the only Christians who have a problem with evolutionary science are the so called Young Earth Christians. They have two problems. One is the timetable set down by geologic study coupled with the paleontological record. The other is the diversity of man as evidenced by the variety of races, which is shown by, among other things, their genetic makeup and linguistic patterns.

As regards the geologic evidence, the earth has been the scene of a number of catastrophic geologic events since its creation. What Young Earthers would have us believe, in essence, is that one great catastrophe compressed into a few thousand years is sufficient to account for all the changes to the earth that geology and/or paleontology have shown to have occurred. Make no mistake about it. Catastrophe and the earth are old dance partners. The pounding the globe takes upon the arrival of a big rock from space every few hundred thousand years or every few million years is well documented. The current theory of the disappearance of the dinosaurs is that a big falling object (perhaps coupled with wide scale volcanic action unconnected with the appearance of the space rock) caused climate change on a massive scale over a short period of time. (The "one-two punch" theory.) Exit the dinosaurs. The facts, the hard data, presented by either body of work, the full of geology or the full of paleontology, are enough to crush the life out of any theory that the earth and life on it are only a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old. Catastrophes included.

Then there's the diversity of man. The Young Earthers would have us believe that Noah and his three sons and their wives, the four couples in all, account for the broad tapestry that represents what is now human kind. Even if the couples were long lived, their progeny could not account for the way things are. Remember, it's not a question of numbers but of diversity. The diversity of man as can easily be observed by looking at his globally distributed characteristics is strong evidence of the hollowness of the Young Earth theory. Grab the data from linguistics and genetics and it smothers the idea that man has only been evolving for a few thousand years.

Some "regular" Christians are embarrassed by the shouting of the Young Earthers, and some other Christians feel sorry for them. And for obvious reasons.

How can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time? Most Christians are unphased by what science, driven by the relentless curiosity of the human mind, has shown us about the past history of our planet and about ourselves. Some may even see God's handiwork in the layers of rock within the Grand Canyon or the fossilization of old bone or in the molecular spiral that is DNA.

Another Answer

You can not believe in both!!!!! Most people on both sides, who fully understand the meaning and implications of both would agree. Evolution is specifically a theory designed to provide a completely naturalistic explanation of how the world and universe came to be. Secondly, evolution as such, is a philosophically driven theory frequently ignoring the mountain of contrary evidence produced by the many scientists who do not believe in creation.

Christians who believe in the Bible and who do not wish to mix false science with a faith which is firmly rooted in historical fact reject not only the false belief but the false science that goes along with it. They are not afraid of any genuine scientific debate since true knowledge will prevail in the end. The frequent use of 'straw-man' argumentation by those who wish to characterize this position, together with remarks which amount to a personal attack, does not change the mounting evidence against evolution, not does it change the incompatibility of the two positions.

Put simply, oil and water don't mix and so the two belief systems are incompatible. Another Answer According to Intelligent Design, God designed the Universe (along with its laws - the law of species evolution included) and then the universe evolved. This theory makes sense. Universe indeed seems well designed (a slight change to the 200-th decimal point of the gravitational constant or the electron charge would lead to a universe that cannot support life). Moreover, the evolution theory indeed explains some things in the micro-level of species evolution. Literally, it's impossible.

Another View:

But, there are some Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution - that God used evolution to create the entire universe. This is feasible. As long as the Christian believes that God was behind the beginning of the universe (whether by creation or theistic evolution), it is okay.

But it is not okay to be a Christian and believe in secular evolution. That is, that there was no intelligent design in the process of evolution. That would be a Christian living a hypocritical lie. And it cannot work.

Another Answer: I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. The first two chapters of Genesis were never intended by the author to be literal history; they're Hebrew poetry. As such, they give us theological not historical truth. This means that the theory of evolution does not conflict with the Bible. If it doesn't conflict with the Bible it doesn't conflict with Christianity. What evolution does conflict with is a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, but that is not the Bible itself; its just a modern interpretation of it. It is entirely reasonable to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

Another Answer

Certainly many Christians believe in evolution. Sometimes in so doing they absorb ideas which are not put forward by people who understand the Bible correctly and so contain information which is not correct. One examples of this is related to the type of literature represented in Genesis. It is formed as prose and intended to be interpreted as a historical document. The 'toledoth phrases' which regularly appear through the book indicate the end of particular sections, possibly the tablets on which they were written.

It is also certainly true that the Genesis creation account has its theological aspect which proceeds from its historical statements about the creator. If evolution is true, then the Genesis record of events cannot also be true, even theologically. The two are inseparable.

Thirdly, the language of Genesis one does not leave room for any interpretation other than that the days as written were of 24 hours duration as we know today. This is because the Hebrew word yom (day) is qualified by the words evening and morning. Even those who believe in evolution and thus reinterpret the Genesis narrative acknowledge this to be the original meaning.

Long-age interpretations are also recent as the account in Genesis has almost universally been understood in a literal sense down through the ages, until the rise of Darwinism. It is thus a prior belief in evolution which then forces a re-interpretation of Genesis which is decidedly foreign to the text itself. Many have also noted that the actual order of Creation is different in the two systems.

People then go so far as to suggest that a literal interpretation is somehow out of keeping with the original intention of the author. While people do accommodate the Genesis account to fit evolution, this is decidedly foreign to the clear meaning of the text itself and is not in anyway an 'invention of fundamentalists' or 'Young-Earth creationists'.

All this said, it is clear that Christians do believe in evolution and then try to fit Genesis to it. This also creates problems with the literal understanding of Genesis which Jesus Himself clearly had. What has been created can evolve. I was created as a fetus in my mothers womb, after I was born I evolved into a newborn baby. Over the years I have evolved into a teenager, young adult, then a man. Creation can evolve to a higher existence. BUT, creation was first.

Additional Answer:

Answer is no, you cannot believe in millions of years of evolution (one animal turning into a completely different type of animal over millions of years) and be consistent with the Bible. Humans didn't evolve -you started out a human and you're still a human. Christians shouldn't believe in evolution because it completely contradicts what the Bible says. I believe that being a follower of Christ and believe in evolution are 2 mutually exclusive things. This is why:

To believe in Jesus Christ is to confess in your heart that He is God, who became flesh and was born as a man by virgin birth; that He lived a sinless life and lived among His own; that He died in atonement for our sins and that His sacrificial death reconciled us, sinners, with God.

Now, sin was introduced in the world by the Fall of Man - an act of rebellion originated by pride and deception - which separated mankind from God. Therefore reconciliation was needed. The only way to such reconciliation was Jesus' death on the Cross. As Christ (the Messiah) and as God, Jesus was the only one who could provide a sacrifice holy enough to reconcile us with the love of the Father.

Think about this: if mankind "evolved" from a common ancestor with apes, then there was never such a thing as the Fall of Man. Hence, sin was never introduced in the world; man was never separated from God and no one needed to be reconciled.

Therefore there was never the need for a Savior - and Christ died in vain.

See the problem? Denying the creation of man by divine and supernatural intervention is denying the need for Christ. Therefore, belief in evolution could be (to some extent) compatible with the idea of "a" God - but certainly not with the God of the Bible, and even less with Christ. As a Christian and geologist I have no problem being both. You can not ignore the fossil truth and the fact that the bible was wrote for the masses to understand in parables.

There is a higher being that created us. Saying all humans evolved from Africa is silly like saying all fish came from one lake or sea or all dogs came from one country.

Life forms or humans develop anywhere the environment is conducive to life even on other planets.

It is not logical, the two are mutually exclusive. Acknowledging Darwinian Evolution while upholding a Christian belief is axiomatically contradicting in credo and deduction; one cannot be a Christian while at the same time sustaining a mental coherence between the two. Why? Darwinian-Evolution, comprising of two scientific theories 'Evolution' and 'Big Bang,' practically undermines the whole of Christian theology, falsifying a massive amount of Old Testament content and a majority of New Testament books, particularly Romans, and all four canonical gospels of John, Mark, Luke, and Matthew.

If already this much of the Scriptures is forged, then what keeps it from becoming, as nearly the entire atheist's blundered camp jeers, a fairytale-mythology? How does it undermine Christianity you ask? Let's consider under what premise neo-Darwinism identifies itself. First, it embraces naturalistic processes which are devoid of purpose and any supernatural interference or causation; no inference from a designer.

Secondly, the primary evolutionary mechanism, the interplay of chance mutations with environmental pressure, requires no explanation for the mechanism, and therefore, any religion under the pretense of providing a required "Why?" is guilty of ignorance and deserves a consequential strict scientific condemnation, as science rightfully should, on behalf of the currently established scientific tenets of evolutionary science (consisting cosmological and chemical evolution, along with biological).

Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist.

Only the scientifically illiterate (except in the rare case of Collins and a few others who have all been soundly refuted) and ignorant can hold to Christian belief together with evolution (a concealed form of religious belief). For it is the same as ratifying and promoting Christianity and Scientology amiably with one another.

Additionally, while there is no definite answer, there are plausible and convincing answers as to what transpired to produce the "Big Bang," (National Academy of Sciences, Singh, Dawkins and other notable pioneers and supporters cling to Big Bang theory) which is the critical constituent prior to the inception of evolution (be it any type of the theory of evolution, yet excepting micro-evolution preemptive for Creation Theory) in Evolutionary Theory.

As the Big Bang and Theory of Evolution are not mutual, that is, Big Bang is not prerequisite of the Theory of Evolution; this follows to say that despite the seclusion of the Big Bang, it is a naturalistic process that happens throughout life, and no form of theistic Christian belief (theism cannot account for, or compromise evolution) is sanctioned. Evolution is caused by triggers in genes. Different animals have different triggers. These triggers can be caused by varying circumstances, but most commonly a change in habitat.

Evolutionary beginning:

This dwells into biopoiesis (such as primordial ooze).

Some maintain that evolutionary processes started only after life was already present, and from there makes a leap of improbable proportions to a "single, universal, common" ancestor for all life on earth.

Some maintain that when lightning struck the ocean, chemical elements reacted and almost instantaneously arranged itself in RNA and DNA, which further arranged itself into several thousand genes and millions of atoms capable of feeding itself from non-organic sources. It then remained in stasis for around 3.5 billion years, when over the next 600 million years, it then proceeded to arrange itself into all life.

As demonstrated and explained above, the Theory of Evolution leaves no room for a Christian God to interfere. An adherence to Christianity and Evolution combined is dismissed as illogical, incomprehensive, and paradoxical.

Another View:

Although this acceptance is a growing trend across Europe, in particular, there is simply no way anyone can 'reshape' the Bible into a book that also somehow supports the theory of evolution. Jesus (as the Son of God) and the Apostles did not teach any other 'genesis' than God's creation found in the opening book of the Bible and repeated many times throughout the Scripture -- in fact Jesus was the one who did the actual forming of man out of the dust (see John 1:1-4). He was there. Was anyone there to witness evoloution? Has anyone found the 'missing link.' Can evolution explain why the eye sees or the myriad of symbiotic relationships in nature. How about the finite universe?

There are immense pressures falling upon Christians and the various denominations to find a 'middle ground.' However, if we are brave enough to accept the creation account at face value, then theistic evolution becomes impossible to believe. We cannot believe both the Bible and evolution. Both Old and New Testaments consistently support the account of the divine creation of Adam and Eve.

Logically then, those of us who desire to truly know the truth and not merely accept writings/teachings of others, are obliged now to examine the evidence for the authority and authenticity of the Bible, along with God's existence, and compare them with the viability of the theory of evolution. I wonder how many will actually take this first step.

Another Answer

Evolution is the attempt to explain Creation without a Creator. There are only two options: either Creation by Evolution or Special Creation by God. There are several reasons why Christians could believe in Evoultion.

Disobedience.

Many scientists have thoroughly checked Evolution and concluded it just cannot work, and then despite this still believe in creation by Evolution because the only other option is Special Creation by God but refuse to accept that because it would mean obedience to that very same God. Unfortunately some of these are Christians who don't want to be told what to do.

No alternatives given.

Most people are taught that everything came about solely by Evolution, and are not even told there is another option available of Special Creation by God: they don't even know there is a choice. Since many of these people are Christian it is inevitable they will believe in Evolution.

Risk of losing job.

Also, although many scientists are Christians who believe in Creation by God, if they so much as hint this they will will not get even neutral Peer-Reviews, and will,believe it or not, definitely lose their funding, plausibility, accreditation, and their jobs. They have to say they believe in Evolution if they want to keep their job, and over time can actually come to believe what they have actually said. They can only openly say they don't believe in evolution when their job is not at risk

Old Testament not taught.

Some Christians do believe in Evolution because the Creation by God is in the Old Testament, and they don't read it because they have been taught the Old Testament has been done away with. Creation figurative Some Christians believe in Evolution because they have been taught the Creation is Figurative only and wasnt factual so it didn't happen that way. Media The Media is very strongly Pro-Evolution: it does not give equal air time to Anti-Evolutionists. If time is given Creationists are mocked, lampooned, and their comments are biased and censored. Creation by God is not mentioned except to downplay it and stress it was believed only by uncivilized primitive savages but in comparison modern man is civilized.