Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

http://m.nbcnews.com/science/bill-ny...ist-2D11844099



Looking forward to this.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I am quite suspicious of this.

The world does not play fair and my first inclination is that this will turn into a hit piece on Christianity.

The debate rules and who would be the judges make a great difference in a debate.

I hope time does not prove me right, but I highly suspect a trap in here somehow.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I went to the creation museum about two years ago it was awesome. I hold to a a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of gen.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I can see the future! Bill Nye and his fans will enjoy a decisive victory. Ken Ham and his fans will enjoy a decisive victory. Everyone wins! :lol

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I'm inclined toward Gerald Schroeder's explanations.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Go.../dp/1439129584

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

me, too. the A&E story has always read like a species coming to sentiency to me--i mean, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for cryin out loud--and ignoring the new dna evidence seems like saying the world is flat. If God can raise up followers from these rocks then really what is the issue. but these shows never seem to want to consider a holistic viewpoint, do they?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

So unless i am mistaken i am assuming that you do not believe in a literal six day creation as put forth in gen?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

you know the def of 'Lord's Day' might as easily apply as not; but no i guess it just seems natural to me, especially given the style those early passages are written in, to allow for other possibilities, at least. really, it doesn't affect my faith either way.

Yep

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

There isn't much of a debate on this issue...

As do I. 6 unspecified periods of time. There was no 24 hr day until after creation.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

It's strange that neither of you notice the most glaring inconsistency that genesis 1 has with reality.

Day and night are phenomenon which require a sun and satellite (ie earth). We have day and night on earth solely because of the light from the sun and the rotating of planet earth. In genesis 1 God creates the sun a full 3 or 4 days after he creates day and night. No matter what literal interpretation you adopt for genesis 1 you will never be able to explain this discrepancy of having day and night without having a sun.

So if you adopt any literal reading Genesis 1 you do so at the cost of making it possible for day and night to occur without the sun... and that's just absurd.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

No problem here since all of the laws of nature come from God (including the twenty four hour day and the rotation of the earth around the sun) He has the ability to suspend or tweak in any way He chooses. If God stood up in timeless eternity and called all of the world into existence from nothing (as we read in Gen 1:1) the rest is easy.

If you think my answer is faulty or to simplistic or screams of to dauphin the unknown you should hear the naturalistic evolutionist explain how nothing created everything and how non-life made life (both of which positions are absurd according to observable science)

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

well, i'd agree that the real debate prolly won't come out; i think a big clue is @ ...and the earth became void, over the earth was void.

Well, light being created before a sun is not an issue to me, but this is. This seems to say that the 24 hour day was before the creation of the sun.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I never noticed (until now) that every day of creation is followed with "And the evening and the morning were the [insert numerical value] day. "
So, even though "day" can mean an unspecified amount of time, the text (in English) does not allow us to make that conclusion.

Hmm...

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

That sums it up very well.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Good site to explore is here:

http://www.reasons.org

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

So you don't have a problem with there being evenings and mornings without the sun?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

strangely, the sky apparently looked way different during our early creation, and it is possible that the Almighty God planet (satan's 'Saturn') was once a source of light. hmm. so i don't know, but it would be one way God could make day and night before making the Sun.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Its strange that those who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis in favor of various evolutionary theories (whether secular or "theistic") fail to notice the glaring inconsistencies such as the fact that it is impossible for life to come from non living matter, for any creature to "evolve" into a different "kind" of creature, that all mutations are due to the loss of information, and not beneficial. To say nothing of the glaring inconsistencies of theistic evolutionists who affirm that the Bible is the Word of God with one side of their mouth, while discrediting it with the other. And all of this with ZERO hard demonstrable scientific evidence, just a bunch of speculative theories. There is more evidence for global warming than there is for macro-evolution. There is an equal amount of evidence that Elvis is still alive and that 9/11 was an inside job.
It is plausible that there could be day and night without the sun. Since God spoke light into existence without the sun, and since there will be light in the millennium without the sun, and since the Bible declares that there will be no sun because the Lamb will be the light in the new Jerusalem (and presumably the new creation) then it is possible for there to be day (and night, defined by the absence of light) without the sun. Furthermore, it is possible because God said that's what happened, and He was "there" so to speak.

Which is even more of a reason to believe in a literal creation week, rather than the day-age theory (or any spin off) which makes the "days" equal to a thousand, thousands, or millions of YEARS each. If Genesis 1 gives us an order of creation (as the reading suggests) then it would be very problematic to have plant life on day 3 and a sun on day 4, if there were actually thousands or millions of years in between. It would be particularly difficult for plant life to thrive in the absence of animal/insect life, which doesn't come until day 6. If these were periods of thousands or even millions of years there are real problems. If they are days, not so much.


If this is possible then your discrepancy evaporates:
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

The only discrepancy is between rejecting the testimony of scripture for the testimony of men (many of which with a vested interest that evolution be "true")..

More absurd than postulating that life came from non living matter?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I think the more we look at Genesis there is no other good hermeneutic alternative except that the days are literal "24 hour" days, for precisely the same reasons you list.
1)Day is defined in Genesis 1 as consisting of light and darkness (evening and morning)
2)The days in Genesis are given a numerical value, further strengthening the argument for literal days
in addition to this
3)Every time the creation account is referred to in scripture, it is referred to as a literal historical event. Granted there are times in which spiritual lessons are taught from Genesis 1 (such as 2 Corinthians 4:6).
4)Jesus himself referred to the creation account as literal, as did all NT writers, and traced the "beginning" back to the creation week, in particular day 6 (Mark 10:6). This should have some serious weight if Jesus is who we believe Him to be, he certainly could have clarified the issue:

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

5)IF God is indeed infinite in power and wisdom, is eternal, and time itself is simply a creation of His, why do we think 6 days is too brief a time period for Him to create the universe? Especially if His Word alone is powerful enough to speak things into existence (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6)? He didn't need 6 days, he didn't even need 1 hour. He is mighty and able to do anything He wants as He wants. And will do so again in when he creates all things anew, which is an instantaneous act, not an act which takes hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. Beyond all of this, the only scripture that we have, which is said to come directly from the hand of God, the scripture engraved on the tablets given to Moses, contains an first hand account of creation given by God himself:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and ALL that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I think there are a lot of good reasons to affirm the literal account of Genesis, especially if someone affirms the inspiration and authority of the scriptures (and ESPECIALLY so if they affirm the inerrancy of the scriptures). IF you notice the large majority of arguments made by theistic evolutionists/progressive creationists ALWAYS center around and are based on scientific theories, such as red shift, c-14 dating, the geological column, etc. They do not make their case from the scripture, they spend their whole time trying to explain away scriptures which plainly refute their conclusions in much the same way the universalist will attempt to explain away/redefine scriptures such as Matthew 25:41. Its the same tactic, just another subject. The whole argument always comes back to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Word of God. And as always, the Word of God is assailed generation by generation, and continually emerges triumphant. If evolution was true, the Scopes monkey trial of the 1920's would have been the final nail in the coffin. Instead, the more technologically advanced we become, and the things that can be tested by true science (such as DNA) continually point toward an all wise designer.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I wasn't particularly impressed with Hugh Ross in either of these debates. If the Young Earth Creationists are as wacko as they are put off to be, Ross should be "mopping" the floor with them. His problem is he is trying to hold to the middle ground, and so anyone who believes in the literal account of the scripture destroys Ross' arguments with the scripture, even if they cannot match his "science".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNV6XYpX_XQ

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I can't think of anything more absurd than Richard Dawkins expressing his belief that aliens could be the source of life on earth. Okay...so reject the God of the Bible, and credit all the work of His hands to aliens. Sounds like real science to me.:heeheehee

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories. The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

The "evening and morning" were markers of a 24 hour period. We only need a sun and moon to notice this 24 hour period visually. However if we were on the Star Trek Enterprise, we'd still count off hours without a sun and moon. We might even still count off the Evening shift or morning shift and even wakeup and have a morning coffee.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

All that is needed is light and the absence of light. Someone can create a huge DOME like in Logan's Run and people can live in it without even seeing the Sun yet still have an artificial light source that grows dim at the same time every day until it's Dark.

So God created the idea of a day and night cycle before Creating A Sun and Moon to do this for us naturally.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

So are Allens

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake....1248602467.jpg

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Not that I believe in it, but in the day-age reading of genesis 1 isn't there still a God that could have miraculously sustained all plant life without there being a sun... its kinda funny you attack that theory as being impossible when God can do anything...

But either way, life on earth most certainly arose from nonlife (its not impossible, thats simply what happened). Whether you explain that by saying God did it or whether you search and are eventually able to find a way for it to have happened naturally it still means that life arose from nonlife. Science is about explaining the world naturally and as such scientists ought to keep searching for a natural explanation for how life arose from nonlife. Maybe they will find one maybe they will not but science wouldn't progress if it didn't try to find natural explanations.

Getting off the topic of abiogenisis and moving on to evolution, pelthais has shown many times on this board that macro evolution has much more evidence than the evolution deniers can possibly imagine. The science truly is on the side of evolution but that's something you don't want to hear.

Moving on to what is really important to you, the scriptures. So while you can say that in heaven there is no need for a sun thats fine. Obviously there was a need for the sun on earth or God wouldn't have created it and the bible even tells us what the sun was for in Genesis 1:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

To summarize God made the sun and moon to give light upon the earth. So what was the light and darkness and the evening and the morning and even the day spoken of in Genesis 1:2-5 ?

As far as the verse in revelation you quoted:
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

That verse presupposes that the sun and moon were to provide light on earth which is exactly what genesis 1 tells us.

So getting back to the topic, what is the light that god created in genesis 1 actually supposed to be. Prehaps its actually a statement about the existence of light. God created light and day and night but did not yet provide the earth with that light till the 4th day when he created the sun. If this is the case my argument using the creation of day and night before the creation of the sun isn't a good argument.

By the way why is evolution the hot topic issue when other popular scientific theories more directly conflict genesis 1. For example, astronomy supposes that the sun came into existence before the earth while genesis supposes that the earth was created before the sun. Why don't literal 6 day creationists lash out against astronomers for going against the bible just like they do for evolutionists?

No. God separated light from darkness. No sun needed.

Though an earth without form and void. That sounds evolutionary.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

I remember signing on to my email about a year or so again and on AOL there was a "cover story" that scientist may perhaps have found a planet with the conditions for life. My curiosity got me so I clicked the link and there was this long story about so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years away (can't remember, but it was so far away that it would take over 150 years of straight space travel at the 186,000 miles per second to get there). Anyway as I continued reading through the article it defined life, not as intelligent life, but that the planet may possibly have the conditions for bacteria to exists, which the article claimed would be less complex that "shower mold". I was sitting there thinking "really? They're excited about that? That's the best they can do, maybe possibly shower millions and millions of miles away?

And yet with some would actually consider that life came on earth a viable alternative to creation by an all wise God? Really how does someone respond to that? Its like trying to talk rationally to someone who brain is fried on drugs. A person like that has willingly suppressed the truth and bought into self delusion. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools. Such is the "scientific community" who reject all things relating to God. They are considered the "wise" of the day as the ancient Greek philosophers were the "wise" of their day, but history will reveal their foolishness to all, as will eternity, when all these things will be laid bare for all to see and understand.
The question of aliens and other origins speculation only has merit while we live this life, in death it will be obvious to all that in fact there is a God, and in fact we are accountable to Him. So what if some do not believe, does their unbelief change the truth of God?

Its a useless theory.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Are astronomers also wrong when they claim the sun came into existence before the earth?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Yes. I would say that the whole idea behind any theistic evolutionary theory is that there is still a God that did it. I do not think that people who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 will be lost because of it, but I do think they error concerning the scriptures, and actually create a foothold for opponents of the Word to attack the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of scripture. Therefore while it is neither wise nor hermeneutically consistent, I do not think it is a salvation issue. If we are justified by our faith in Christ, then that simply means we must understand and believe the gospel, it doesn't necessitate a complete and 10% doctrinal accuracy in regard to all matters of scripture, the mysteries of the incarnation and godhead, or eschatological perfection.

As far as the day age theory, I attack it simply because it is not scriptural. Its not a matter of "could God have....." because obviously He is sovereign and could do anything He wanted to. He did not have to tell us anything about creation at all. He could have choose in His wisdom to simply give the simple statement that He created everything. No details were necessary. He choose in His providence and sovereignty to give us the details, perhaps as a matter of faith (He knowing all things, the beginning from the ending, and knowing the attacks that Satan would make). But the point in my deploring the day-age theory is not that it was impossible, but simply that it contradicts what God SAID He did. In SIX DAYS the Lord made the heaven and the earth and all that in them is. If we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then we should be willing to accept the 10 commandments as authoritative. If we don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then obviously the crux of the debate shifts. But amongst Christians, whether young earth or old earth, if they affirm the authority of the Word of God, then I do not see how they can arrive at an old earth conclusion from the scriptures.

This is humorous. You state an impossibility matter of factly as an absolute certainty, with neither proof nor reason nor authority (save your own) to back up your assertion.

If someone affirms that God created life that is not life from non-living matter. I know that is complex, but just think it through. If God, who is alive, creates another life form, then no matter how you slice that pie it is not life from non life. Seriously.

Except for the last part about non-life I have no problem with that. Real science is good, it is interesting, it is beneficial. Speculation and theory are a part of the field of science, but they are not really science. Real science is demonstratable, and I would argue that real demonstratable, repeatable, science heavy favors a intelligent design and theism. That alone doesn't confirm the God of the Bible, but I do think there is a mountain of evidence within real science that points to the existence of a God. It is such a mountain of evidence only a fool would deny it.

However, in reflecting more on your statement there is a certain level of accuracy, because you are right, "science" starts out with the pre-supposition that life arose from non-life because modern scientists tend to be agenda driven, and thus they approach and analyze research with certain presuppositions such as that life came from non-life. Never mind the FACT that this is impossible and has never happened, much less has it been demonstrated in an experiment, even in labs where they have made every effort to mix chemicals together to remake the mythical primordial soup. Science that doesn't deal with facts isn't science, its speculation. I'm not enemy of real science.

I have no problem with real science. Thank God for real science. Look at the strength of the creationist argument just since we realized the complexities of DNA. Real science is beneficial.
Not really. Pel bases his whole argument on scientific speculation, he is a Hugh Ross disciple. There is not any good evidence for macro evolution. No one has observed, nor will they every observe one species/kind turning into another species or kind. No one disputes there are variations within species-there are many kinds of dogs and horse, it doesn't mean one became the other just because they all have 4 legs. There is NO evidence for Darwinian macro evolution. None.

But one thing I noticed when discussing this with Pel was that nearly every single one of his arguments against the young earth view are based on modern scientific theories, not on scripture. I would present the Word of God, he would present the word of some scientist. That's how all theistic evolutionists argue. It reveals their folly, which is that the word of man is placed above the word of God, where there is apparent contradiction, then we should go with the word of man, so we don't look foolish like these young earth creationists. Its as if there whole mindset is "Affirm that God created everything in 6 days, preposterous. We'll be the laughing stock of everyone. The world will never take us seriously."

Right, but we'll be taken seriously if we believe that a snake and donkey talked, that a virgin had a baby, and that a dead man came back to life. Oh, but that's not really any problem for my brethren like Pel, because not only does he throw out the Creation account of Genesis one, He doesn't believe Adam was actually the first human being (and I assume therefore allegorizes all of Genesis 3), doesn't believe in an actual flood (nor does Hugh Ross), and doesn't believe in most if any of the miracles in the Old Testament. But then DOES believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and I think He believes in the virgin birth, though I'm not certain). So based on what consistent hermeneutic do we deny the literal events of the Old Testament, but then accept the NT miracles as literal? None. Furthermore, if we allegorize Genesis 1-3, we have real problems with the heart of the gospel explained in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, as well as the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ himself referred to Creation, Adam, the Flood, Lot's wife, Sodom & Gomorrah, and many other events of the old testament as literal historical events. Was Jesus wrong? Was he deceived? Was He being deceptive? I think these are real problems for Christians who deny the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and I believe the problem is compounded as the more scripture they deny.

Really?
Has evolution ever proved life from non-life? Point me to it, I want to see what they did so I can repeat the experiment (all true science is repeatable).
Has evolution ever proved that species can change into something else? Can evolution explain origins of human language, and how there got to be some many languages? Or why only humans can communicate? Or why if evolution is survival of the fittest and we adapted by keeping beneficial mutations why I almost drowned a couple of years ago? It would have been helpful to still have gills? Or why humans apparently weren't interested in wings? That would be a helpful adaption. I know I'm veering off of the argument into wild speculation, but really evolution is just speculation so humor me for a moment. It really hasn't proved ANYTHING much less does it have science truly on its side, unless you redefine what science actually is.
I simply affirmed that God did not need the sun for light to exist in the original creation, nor in the new creation. I think an argument can be made that even now the does not NEED to exist, since God is independent, His existence doesn't depend on anything in creation, and since He is all powerful, I'm sure He has the power to sustain all things in the absence of the sun (in fact, I think we have an illustration of this at the end of Revelation), but to your point God choose to create the sun, and yes, at this time the sun is the source of light on the earth. That's an established fact, I don't deny it, I'm quite happy with the sun. I fail to see your point. If I denied the creation or purpose for the sun, perhaps. But my only argument in regard to the sun was that it is possible to have light without the sun, because of God's mighty power. That's not a denial of the creation of the sun on day 4.
Day was light. Night was darkness. God defined day and night. There is no further explanation needed. Apparently if the sun and moon were not created until day 4 God allowed for some other means. He is all powerful, and if He wanted to create the sun on day 1 He could have. I'm sure that 1)God had a purpose in not creating the sun until day 4 and 2)He has a purpose in relaying that fact to us. I am not sure why that is, perhaps it is one way to safeguard us against the sun worship that is prevalent in paganism. I do not know, but since I accept the Bible as inspired and inerrant, I will choose to believe the sun came into existence on day 4, even if I do not know the reason why that is.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Evolution is the big dog, everything else kind of plays off of that, such as astronomy, geology, etc. I don't think "literal 6 day creationists" are tying to "lash out" at evolutionists any more than they "lash out" at theological liberals, or those who claim there are other ways to be saved outside of Jesus, or those who claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The issue isn't lashing out at one segment, the issue always comes back to attacks that are made on the Word of God. The Bible tells us in Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15 that we should be able to defend our faith. I think it is a plus for Christians to involve themselves in these types of discussions.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Yes.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Jason, I'm not going to respond point by point. Our responses are getting far to lengthy as it is. When I said life came from non life I didn't mean that in the sense that god didnt create life or that he is not alive. What I meant was that god created life out of nothing. That's life from non life. Life came to exist out of nothing. God caused that to happen for the first time on the 3rd day of creation. So yes in one sense god is alive and life came from him but in another sense, even though he created life, because he created that life from nothing then life came from nothing as well.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

What I find most concerning is that a literal readin on genesis causes you to not believe biologists nor astronomers nor geologists on so many different topics. It's kind if scary how opposed a literal interpretation of genesis opposes so many main branches of science.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Granted. I will reject various theories regarding origins that contradict Genesis 1. How is that dangerous. I am unlikely to be a harm to myself or anyone else in society by holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis. On the flip side there are well documented cases of people who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis (and theistic creation all together) who both become a danger to themselves, their treatment of others, and society as a whole (when they gain autonomous power).

Furthermore you are presenting a straw man by saying those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis opposes so many branches of science. That is simply not true brother. I've already clearly come out in favor of real science. To reject certain theories or conclusions that are based on presupposition does not mean one rejects science. As I said I think true science is fascinating, all branches. Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc. All are excellent, extremely interesting, and even "fun" to learn. I wish I had that attitude in high school, but now I love science. My problem is my love for science didn't come until AFTER I became a Christian (in fact my interest in science stems from Genesis). My biggest problem to furthering my studies in science is that I love history more, and so I have trouble putting down history books in favor of science books. I'm admittedly a scientific novice. Probably a novice even amongst other novices. If the strength of my arguments were on science then I'd definitely be overmatched on this topic. But when my argument is from scripture, I have a strong argument. Thankfully there are people who DO know about science and believe in YEC who can refute secular and theistic evolutionists.

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

hee hee.... God didnt make actual DAYS unitl day 4...waaaachu gonna do bout that?

Re: Creation vs. Evolution Debate
 

Simple let you ask God why He called them day 1,2and 3