Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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.

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jfrog

In genesis 1 God creates the sun a full 3 or 4 days after he creates day and night.

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.

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

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")..

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

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