Evolution and the Creation Could Both be True

SemanticsMany Christian evolutionists accept the entire Bible as truth, both the Old and New Testaments. These people, like myself, don't find contradictions between macroevolution and the Genesis account of the beginning of the world, so they see no problem with accepting both. I consider taking the Old Testament literally as interpreting it as a 6-day creation with a 6,000 year old world. Bible literalists make unnecessary assumptions from the creation account, and reject science as a result of it. Creationism might not be a religion but it is a big part of some religions. Who says that the God of the Bible had to create the world a certain way? If God created nature, would it not make sense for him to use naturalistic processes to create the world? I'm not one to say the Genesis account isn't really a fast-forward of evolution, especially since no real time periods are given.Noah's ark and the six-day Bible model are actually pretty irrelevant to the debate, seeing how I specified in Round 1 that this debate is about macroevolution (human evolution). We could go on and on about Genesis 1 and whether the creation model is viable, but as I stated earlier, this debate is not about trying to prove/disprove creationism, but rather discuss the consistencies/inconsistencies of human evolution and it's comparison with the Bible. However, the time span of macroevolution is fine to discuss, since it is relevant. I have been contending against young earth creationism since that theory is inconsistent with it.2 Peter 3:8Although there are many translations of the Bible, that doesn't necessarily mean that each verse means a different thing in each. I decided to search what 2 Peter 3:8 comes out to be in 22 different translations of the Bible[1]. What I found is that the verse has a few words rearranged in each translation, but in each, the meaning is the same. Every one had the words "like a thousand years" or "as a thousand years". The message is pretty clear, and what the writer really does seem to be trying to say is that time is relative to the Lord. There is also the assumption being made that this could be referring to a literal thousand years, but as we examine the verse:"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."The word as (similar to "like" in the other versions) is being used, indicating that this isn't exactly 1,000 years, but that time is relative to the Lord. No, it doesn't say exactly how long that comparison of time is, but it is wrong to make an assumption based on a guess.Adam and EveThe rib part of the Adam and Eve account is an interesting bit. A bit of research shows that "...Adam's rib was used in the creation of Eve. The word translated rib is the Hebrew word tsela. It is used more than thirty times in the Old Testament and is only translated rib in this passage. It refers to the side of Adam. In the Sumerian language, one of the most ancient known to humanity, the word for rib also means life. In this context it is clear that the woman was created from the life of the man.”[2] This opens up a big window of possibilities. Evolution without religion has a problem: life cannot be made from non-life. Here we see that Eve was made from the life of Adam, but not necessarily from his rib, since rib and life are the same word in the Sumerian language.To end this round, I'd like to state Genesis 2:7 which says: "And the Lord God formedmanof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I actually find this verse to more supportive of evolution, because evolution holds that life was created from the mixture of many elements, or in other words, the earth itself.Sources 1. http://biblehub.com... 2. http://web.ccbce.com...