Should Christians Follow Evolution? Creationism vs. Evolution

[WillsGirl]

Long and thoughtful posts here... um can I bring something up?
I think it's really stupid all of the time and discussion going into what to teach kids in public schools as far as how we got here... I am just a little annoyed with this because I think "There is a simple Win-win answer to this!"
Teach them BOTH and don't favor either but let the students and their parents discuss the matter and decide for themselves. I personally think we should know both viewpoints just from a learning aspect.
And personally I am a Christian so I believe in Creation but I think that having studied Evolution was a good part of my schooling (Though I learned it from a Christian stand point) I don't think there is anything wrong with knowing other people's beliefs.
Does this make any sence?
I'm sorry to kind of go a TAD off subject but I have been DYING to get that out in the open somewhere.

[Charn_Tim]

WillsGirl~

haha, no problem, that's okay to take it off track a little :). I agree with most of what you said, but I actually think that the best "win-win" situation is not to teach evolution by natural selection as the reason for the origin and diversity of species and not teach Christian "intelligent design" in science classes at all.

First of all, there is quite simply no evidence that the mechanism of natural selection is responsible for life, so it should not be taught as science. If anything, it belongs in a naturalistic philosophy course, but I think it is misleading to say that it is "good science" to be taught in schools. Whether it is a science at all is debatable and whether it actually fits the facts is even more debatable (and I think it is pretty much falsified as it is currently formulated anyway). Of course, on the other side, since science pretty much exclusively deals with natural phenomena, theistic explanations also should be kept out of science curriculum (in my opinion). Note that this is far from saying that theistic explanations are not true, I am simply saying that it would be the wrong course to teach it in-it would be like learning algebra in P.E. :).

[inkspot]

The astrophysical evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and if you'd like, I will try to manage to give you some sense of this data in terms that one without a scientific background can understand.
I am curious about this, if it is not to big of a hassle to try to reduce it to something that a liberal arts person can understand ...

[The Dancing Lawn]

Please do try cos I love hearing people's views on things like this- its fascinating!

[WillsGirl]

LOL, well here is what I'm getting at... Non christians are offended with the thought of intelligent design being taught in school and Christians don't want to be taught evelution. And if one of them doesn't even make sence to be a part of science then you are stuck with unhappy people, which is why I think that they should both be taught as beliefs. That way no one has the right to be upset because nothing is being forced on anyone.

[Danny]

I believe in God, but I also believe in the principle of evolution. But I agree, it has got out of hand.

[Charn_Tim]

I am curious about this, if it is not to big of a hassle to try to reduce it to something that a liberal arts person can understand ...

Please do try cos I love hearing people's views on things like this- its fascinating!
Sure, inkspot and The Dancing Lawn, I was kind of waiting for someone to ask...the last thing I wanted to do was work on something and put up a big long post that no one is interested in reading :). I have kind of been interested in doing things like this anyway-explaining science to non-scientists in a comprehensive form, although I have never actually tried to do something exactly like this before...I will do my best and I will probably get to it sometime tomorrow night :).

[Rohan Princess]

Hope it's OK I go ahead and respond to this post :confused: :confused:
Sorry i could not quote the begining, my post was too long :)

I know that some scientists believe that the earth is millions of years or billions of years old, but what dating methods are they using? If they are based on radiometric or carbon-14 dating, i would not be so quick to trust in them. As they have been prooven again and again to be to be incorrect, especially dating fossils that are more that a few thousend years old. I can give examples, but they are rather lengthy.
Another thing you might want to consider is this: in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the is in them, and rested on the Sabbath day and hallowed it." I would not be so quick to disregard the Words the Lord has spoken (Exodus 20:1).

I believe that starting with Archbishop Usser who in the 1600's (who believe it or not, pinpointed an exact time of day at an exact date in history) came up with the timeline of the universe understanding "yom" in this context to be interpreted as "24 hours" there have been many Christians (myself included when I was younger) who have misinterpreted that text. So, we need to be really careful when we try to understand the Bible from a scientific perspective and not read into the text what isn't there.

Though Archbishop Usser understood "yom" as a 24 hour period, he based his timelime dates on the Biblical geneolologies, (I think that's how you spell it), which brings me to another point.
Even if the date is not exact, we have before Christ (B.C.) and Anno Domini (A.D.), suggested Jesus was born around 2000 years ago. Then we may continue back Jesus to David, David to Shem, Shem to Adam, and we will see there is no room for millions of years, so the only place to add years is in the 6 Creation days. Just want to keep everything straight.

We are in perfect agreement on this point...If we cannot trust what the Bible says, then why should we trust any of it. Of course I'm not proposing that we reject Genesis 1 and be embarrassed by it because it is scientifically inaccurate, I'm arguing that we have misinterpreted it if we think that yom = 24 hours in the context of Genesis 1. Hence my post #238 where I argued (cogently, I believe) using reasoning from within the text itself as to why yom should be interpreted as a long period of time.

I'm not sure we are in perfect agreement... if you're not proposing we reject Genesis 1, what are you suggesting we do with it. Sorry, if i'm dense on this, but you can either believe it, or not believe it, or partially believe it are those not all the options? I would never reject the Bible and I would hope that not Christian would knowingly do so.
Speaking of misinterpretation is a touchy subject with some people. But if you just read Genesis without any outside influences, what is your impression when you read it this way? Six days or millions of years? As you said we must be caredul when we read into the lines or between them.

I was showing that you get logical inconsistencies when you interpret yom as 24 hours and that you don't get inconsistencies when you interpret yom as a long period of time. Notice in these reasons, I did not once appeal to science but only the text itself for these logical inconsistencies if yom is to be interpreted as 24 hours.

I'm really dense, and i missed those inconsistances. Could you list a few?

I'm actually not familiar with any other uses of yom and "evening and morning" together. They are probably there, but I just can't think of any right now. Can you provide me with some of these verses?
I actually do not understand the point you are trying to make here. What do you mean "If there is light in the day and darkness at night"? Are you referring to Genesis 1:3, the first creation day? Because "days" (yom) prior to creation "day" 4 have all been completed before an earth day had been defined yet, which supports my interpretation.
It would mean beginning and ending of the epoch that God created. For example, Genesis 1:3-5 (the first creation day) would be something like the time from the creation event (around 14 or so billion years ago) all the way up to around 4.5 billion years ago, when the Earth was formed. Of course, once again, it is dangerous to try to read into the text what isn't there and it's not supposed to be a scientific text (in the modern, post-enlightenment sense) although it does speak truthfully regarding science.


*Some verses are Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, To me all of these verses are pointing to a 24 hour period, because if it was any other length of time, why would they not use "season" or "time"... just a thought.
*I meant if there is light in the day and dark at night, that would be 24 hr. unless there was 3/4 billion years kight and 3/4 billion years dark...I don't quite understand your reasoning
*But the Bible doesn't use time or epoch or era or anything other than day, why would you assume otherwise, unless we are trying to fit science into the Bible, and that doesn't work!
I dissagree that the Bible is not a scientific text, (it speaks on anthropology-Adam & Eve, Cain & his wife, Tower of Babel; geology-Noah's Flood; astronomy to name a few). Though it is not a scientific text book (such as schools), because those change every year, quite unlike the Bible.

One point that I noticed you did not address is why there is no phrase, "and there was evening and morning" at the end of day 7. I don't think there is any way around this one exept that we are still in "day" 7, in God's "rest" from the creation of new species. Of course, this fact is supported by science, as there has not been a single new recorded species appearing in the record of nature after mankind had been introduced onto the scene.

On this point I am not sure, but I know where to find out. The only thing i can say is In the six day Creation, God was creating our week (Exodus 20:11). Six days to work one to rest, unless you are on the rest day forever? As you probably know the Romans tryed to make a ten day week, but it didn't work out because God didn't establish it.

Well, first of all, there are several other passages off the top of my head that I can think of that use "day" to mean a period of time different from 24 hours. For example, the famous example of 2 Peter 3:8: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day" and actually most of 2 Peter 3 talks about the "Day of the Lord" where it would be difficult to pack in all that Peter says will happen into one 24 hour time period. Another example from the old testament is in Joel chapters 1 and 2, in speaking of "The Day of the Lord" where it is clear that the time period referred to is going to be longer than 24 hours. There are several others that I've come across (probably in the minor prophets especially) but I think that hopefully this is sufficient to show that there are certainly many other places where "yom" or "day" means longer than 24 hours.

2 Peter 3:8 says "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. " So it cancels itself out. Besides, "yom" is a Hebrew word and the New Testament was written in Greek and others, so being a different language it cannot define the Hebrew "day". Lastly, a thousend years a day wouldn't add up to millions of years anyway.
I believe in Joel, the Lord is talking about the day of His coming, correct me if i'm wrong here.

Secondly, talking about fossil evidence is one piece of evidence that scientists have for the age of the earth, and it is by far the weakest support for an old earth/universe. So naturally, I believe that well-meaning "young-earth creationists" have attacked that aspect of scientific data to try to show that we are far from certain that the universe/earth is billions of years old.

Yes, i agree the fossil record doesn't support the old earth theory at all. And I think the young earth creationists have "attached" it so because it not only supports our case but also is very important to any cause concerning our origins.

I have never heard of any theory that has explained the astrophysical data coupled with General Relativity that allows us to determine the distances of these deep sky objects that are millions and in some cases, billions of light years away without making God out to be a liar who tricks his creation. The astrophysical evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and if you'd like, I will try to manage to give you some sense of this data in terms that one without a scientific background can understand.

I'm not exactly sure what your talking about, but here goes, In
Genesis 1:16-17, it says God "set the stars in the sky", meaning God put them there, and that would probably explain the distance issuse (if that's what your talking about).

Thank you for all the time you've spent discussing this topic with me! I'm sorry i could not address all the information you gave me, but i don have school. Because i couldn't i encourage you to read The Answers Book (by Ken Ham, Jonathon Sarfatai, & Carl Wieland) if you could get your hands on it.
If i might ask, what field of science do you study? Another couple of things I would like to get straightened out are do you believe the theory of Evolution (guided bt God) created us, and what theory are you defending Gap Theory, etc.
Thanks again for you helping my understanding.

[inkspot]

I have never actually tried to do something exactly like this before...I will do my best and I will probably get to it sometime tomorrow night .
I'll be on the road for several days now, so no hurry -- I will check back in when I can and see what you have come up with. Thank you!

But if you just read Genesis without any outside influences, what is your impression when you read it this way? Six days or millions of years?
To be fair, none of us read the Bible in Hebrew (English is our outside influence!), and since most translations say "day," of course we think: "day." But could it be a case of our not being able to read the nuances of the original languages? For a long time people thought Jesus said "In my father's house are many mansions," because this is what the original English translations said, but now days it's generally accepted that a better translation is, "In my father's house are many rooms." Quite a difference! A room, or a mansion? Yet if you were still reading KJV, you would still think He said mansion ... not because the original Greek or Aramaic said it, but because the first English translations said it.

So, could that be the same with "day" in Genesis? I don't know, but I think it is possible. Especially because there was no sun and moon for the early "days," and there was no evening on the seventh day. It could still be a functional pattern for the work week, because it's still 7 "days" with a Sabbath intended on the first day, even if the original creation days were longer.

And yes, you are right, I believe Tim adds the millions of years during the six days of creation, not during any of the generations listed in the Bible. By that time, all of creation was finished.

Good thoughts, RohanPrincess!

[Rohan Princess]

inkspot thanks, why could their not be many mansions in our Father's house? I believe "day" is a "day". just because their was no sun does not mean there was no day, God said there was light. He could have been the light.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

This has been gone over in other places, Rohan Princess, but the Scriptures use "day" in many ways, as in "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!" (Is 13:6), "That day is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance" (Jer 46:10), "Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light" (Amos 5:18) - as well as many others. These passages do not refer to a particular 24-hour period, but a time wherein something would happen. To be open to understanding the many ways in which the Scriptures use a term like "day" is not to undermine their authority or authenticity.

[inkspot]

inkspot thanks, why could their not be many mansions in our Father's house? I believe "day" is a "day". just because their was no sun does not mean there was no day, God said there was light. He could have been the light.
There could be mansions. The King James Version says, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you" (John 14:2). But more modern translations say: "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you" (New International Version) and "There are many rooms in my Father's house. I wouldn't tell you this, unless it was true" (Contemporary English Version).

Some time after King James, they realized that the word which had been translated "mansions" was rreally just the word "rooms." In the same way, the word translated "day" could really mean "epoch," couldn't it? Or a certain span of time ...

God says there was evening and morning, the first day (Genesis 1:3), doesn't He? But how could there be evening and morning with no sun -- God's light would never go out ...

[Charn_Tim]

I know that some scientists believe that the earth is millions of years or billions of years old, but what dating methods are they using? If they are based on radiometric or carbon-14 dating, i would not be so quick to trust in them. As they have been prooven again and again to be to be incorrect, especially dating fossils that are more that a few thousend years old. I can give examples, but they are rather lengthy.
First of all, I would say that at least 99 % of scientists believe that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old. This is not an overestimation or opinion, it is a true statement about the conclusions that those who have studied properties of the universe in detail have drawn. These conclusions that they have drawn come from the same set of scientific theories that allow applications that give us computers, automobiles, cell phones, gps systems, etc. So one must deny the truth value of scientific theories that are responsible for all the technological applications that we have in modern society if one is to reject the conclusion that the universe is around 14 billion years old.

As far as the dating methods that you speak of, I already said in my last post that radiometric dating is by far the weakest set of evidence we have an old universe. I will later (hopefully tomorrow night) try to post some better arguments for an old universe so non-scientists can try to comprehend the logic behind the conclusions that scientists have drawn.

Another thing you might want to consider is this: in Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the is in them, and rested on the Sabbath day and hallowed it." I would not be so quick to disregard the Words the Lord has spoken (Exodus 20:1).
Yes, I've thought about this one too. This is the fourth commandment and is seems to say that God made the universe in 6 24 hour time periods. However, as Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer says, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24 hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days' any more than the 8-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only 8 days." Furthermore, sometimes the Sabbath is actually an entire year (Leviticus 25:4). One can only conclude that the emphasis here is on 1 of 7 time periods, not on making assertions about the length of creation days.

And of course I am not disregarding the words that the Lord has spoken, I am simply trying to do proper Biblical exegesis. The interpretation of the words of the Bible matters a great deal, and it is hard work unfortunately. It involves much more than opening an English translation of the Bible and reading through it like one would read a magazine article (not that I'm suggesting you do this, I am just making a point). Of course, I am in no way suggesting you stop reading the Bible, I am just encouraging people to go deeper in their understanding.


Though Archbishop Usser understood "yom" as a 24 hour period, he based his timelime dates on the Biblical geneolologies, (I think that's how you spell it), which brings me to another point.
Even if the date is not exact, we have before Christ (B.C.) and Anno Domini (A.D.), suggested Jesus was born around 2000 years ago. Then we may continue back Jesus to David, David to Shem, Shem to Adam, and we will see there is no room for millions of years, so the only place to add years is in the 6 Creation days. Just want to keep everything straight.
Right, inkspot addressed this already, so I won't say any more about it here.


I'm not sure we are in perfect agreement... if you're not proposing we reject Genesis 1, what are you suggesting we do with it. Sorry, if i'm dense on this, but you can either believe it, or not believe it, or partially believe it are those not all the options? I would never reject the Bible and I would hope that not Christian would knowingly do so.
Well, I have to say that we are in perfect agreement on your original point that: if we can't trust the Bible to be accurate in what it says about science, then how can we trust it for anything else? The only difference is that I am proposing a different interpretation of Genesis 1 because I think that the interepretation that you have put forth contains contradictions from within the text alone. (Of course, not to mention the body of evidence from General Revelation-nature-that also supports my interpretation).

Speaking of misinterpretation is a touchy subject with some people. But if you just read Genesis without any outside influences, what is your impression when you read it this way? Six days or millions of years? As you said we must be caredul when we read into the lines or between them.
I think I already addressed this...Honestly, if I read through Genesis 1 in my English translation as one would read through a magazine article without trying to see if it makes sense internally, then I would think 24 hours. If I am doing proper Biblical exegesis and determining what the words in the original languages means and judging it in the light of Genesis 1, Genesis 2, the entire book of Genesis, the old testament, and finally the entire Bible and General Revelation, then I come to my interpretation of Genesis 1.


I'm really dense, and i missed those inconsistances. Could you list a few?

Sure, I think inkspot also listed some, but here goes:

It doesn't make sense to interpret "evening and morning on the xth day" as the beginning and ending of an "earth day" which equals "24 hours" because there is no "evening and morning" at the end of day 7, which means that we are still in day 7 as I have said before, so necessarily, day 7 is longer than 24 hours. So "day" does not equal 24 hours.
It doesn't make sense to claim that days 1, 2, and 3 are 24 hour days, because the earth hadn't even been created yet. So why would a day in this context equal a 24 hour earth day, when it hadn't even been defined yet.

I actually thought of another one. Here it is:
In the NASB translation Genesis 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven." (Emphasis added). This verse summarizes the creation account and a more literal Hebrew translation reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making..." (Emphasis added again). So if one is to require a day = 24 hour interpretation of Genesis, then one is left with flat contradiction from within the text itself. Thus, the only way to make this statement make any sense is that we interpret yom to not be 24 hours.

To be continued...

[Charn_Tim]

Oh, inkspot and Prince of the West, you must have posted while I was replying...I didn't see your posts. Good points!

[Charn_Tim]

Okay, sorry this is so long, but I did not want to ignore anything in your post :).


*Some verses are Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, To me all of these verses are pointing to a 24 hour period, because if it was any other length of time, why would they not use "season" or "time"... just a thought.
Okay, wait a minute. I asked you to provide verses in other contexts that use "evening and morning" and yom together. You're citing the verses in question to support the verses in question, which is obviously not support for your claim.


*I meant if there is light in the day and dark at night, that would be 24 hr. unless there was 3/4 billion years kight and 3/4 billion years dark...I don't quite understand your reasoning
Where does it say that there must be a period of darkness and a period of night for each "day"? I already said how the Hebrew words for "evening and morning" are also translated as "beginning and ending" so there would be no need at all to require an equal period of darkness and light. So this is no problem with my interpretation.


*But the Bible doesn't use time or epoch or era or anything other than day, why would you assume otherwise, unless we are trying to fit science into the Bible, and that doesn't work!
I have already given you cases where the Bible does use yom to mean longer than 24 hours notably in Joel, and other minor prophets. Prince of The West also cited verses.


I dissagree that the Bible is not a scientific text, (it speaks on anthropology-Adam & Eve, Cain & his wife, Tower of Babel; geology-Noah's Flood; astronomy to name a few). Though it is not a scientific text book (such as schools), because those change every year, quite unlike the Bible.
Hmm, you are going against pretty much all theologians on this one, if you claim that the Bible is a scientific text in the modern, post-enlightenment sense of the word. I did not say it did not speak about history, anthropology, science, etc.; I only said that its purpose was not to give scientific, historical, anthropological statements and facts.


2 Peter 3:8 says "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. " So it cancels itself out. Besides, "yom" is a Hebrew word and the New Testament was written in Greek and others, so being a different language it cannot define the Hebrew "day". Lastly, a thousend years a day wouldn't add up to millions of years anyway.
I believe in Joel, the Lord is talking about the day of His coming, correct me if i'm wrong here.
Very true, it is in Greek, and it is in the New Testament, but several references to verses where yom is used to denote periods of time longer than 24 hours have already been given. The point I was more trying to make with this verse is that God's ways are higher than our ways, being a "transcendent" creator. I think this verse applies more to argue against the idea that: Why would God have wanted to wait billions of years to create humans who are the supposed pinnacle of creation? Well, here is part of the answer to that: God does not operate in time like we do. He wouldn't be "waiting around" in the same sense that we would be. So anyway, perhaps this is not what you were arguing, and I apologize if I have misplaced this quote.

Yes, Joel is referring to the coming of the Lord.


Yes, i agree the fossil record doesn't support the old earth theory at all. And I think the young earth creationists have "attached" it so because it not only supports our case but also is very important to any cause concerning our origins.
Whoa, I did not say this at all. The fossil record absolutely supports the old earth theory. I simply said it is the weakest set of evidence that we have for proposing an old earth.


I'm not exactly sure what your talking about, but here goes, In
Genesis 1:16-17, it says God "set the stars in the sky", meaning God put them there, and that would probably explain the distance issuse (if that's what your talking about).
It's actually not the distance issues that I'm talking about. I will explain this more later when I post on the evidence of an old universe from astrophysics.


Thank you for all the time you've spent discussing this topic with me! I'm sorry i could not address all the information you gave me, but i don have school. Because i couldn't i encourage you to read The Answers Book (by Ken Ham, Jonathon Sarfatai, & Carl Wieland) if you could get your hands on it.
If i might ask, what field of science do you study? Another couple of things I would like to get straightened out are do you believe the theory of Evolution (guided bt God) created us, and what theory are you defending Gap Theory, etc.
Thanks again for you helping my understanding.
Yes, thank you too. We are siblings in Christ, not adversaries :). I see this as we are trying to interpret the infallible Bible that we love and cherish, not arguing about issues relating to salvation :)...Yeah that's fine, I don't expect you to address everything I have posted here, I have studied this stuff for some years now and I take it very seriously...I am graduating with a degree in physics this year and I am going to go to grad school for a Ph.D. in astrophysics next fall which I am totally looking forward to.

About evolution: I believe in roughly the timeline put forth by the fossil record, and I don't believe in Evolution by natural selection as the reason for the diversity and origin of species, because I strongly feel that the data does not support this assertion. I believe that over many years, God prepared his creation for human life, divinely intervening to create new species as shown in the fossil record...I'm not sure what Gap theory is. I don't think that is the theory I am defending, I'm not even sure that my theory has a name, I get some of my information from the organization Reasons to Believe, but I am not affiliated with them or anything.

[Suzuran]

I do believe in evolution, but I also believe it was started (and probably gently nudged along in small ways every once in a while) by higher beings.

Being a member of the Celtic Wicca faith, I believe that The Big Bang was the result of the first joining of the God and Goddess, and life began from this union. Just in the same way life is created now. And then all evolved from that point, just as a baby grows as it gets older.

But that's just what I happen to believe. I've read everyone else's responses and you all have some very, VERY good points. This is an interesting conversation!

[Jack of Blades]

I'm sorry but I haven't read everything in this thread but my opinion is that if you got every piece of a car and threw the pieces out would over millions of years put themselves together to form a car. That is how I think that the theory of evolution is. Also Darwin said before he died that "I was a foolish young man with foolish ideas."

[Jack of Blades]

I believe in God creating the universe and life on earth. I think 6 or 7 thousand years ago may be reading to much into the genealogies. I also have doubts about a billions and billions year old universe. It is probably younger. :rolleyes:
I also think that the world is younger than 65 million years old but I do know that it is older than (at least in my own opinion) 10,000 years old because God said to Adam to "replenish the earth".

[Wallis]

While we continue debating the different nuances of this thread, I believe we should keep in mind the theological impact of Genesis 1 and 2. It sets the stage for all of the stories through II Kings.

Using a writer's perspective, I could view the Creator saying to His creation:

"Look. You had it good. I made it; therefore, it was good. You decided to go your own way, so now I have to rip you to shreds. Get back on my side, and a part of you will survive."

Thus, I believe we should worry less about the historicity of the Creation account and concentrate more on the theological message that is in harmony with the OT. It should matter less whether mankind evolved from some other creature, was literally formed out of mud, or was incubated in a test tube through some alien laboratory. The message is clear: the "I am with you" wants us to be on His side, however we came to be. The alternative is clear.

[Parthian King]

Although I have observed this thread with some detachment, and appreciate a number of the comments and the spirit in which they were made, I have to largely agree with Wallis here. The question is, where do we start? If we start with the scientific questions, then the discussion (for the Christian who is a scientist) will lead to how to reconcile scientific principles with the text of Scripture. That is a limited, if motivationally noble field. If, however, we start with Scripture, evolution need not even enter the discussion. Why not? Because the text is not interested in that question--it addresses others (those mentioned by Wallis, and many others).

Again, I respect the spirit of this thread for the most part, and the motives of those who seek harmony between scientific advances and Christianity, but if we think Genesis 1-2 was written with science in mind, at least in the modern sense of that word, we are missing the point. In our interpretive efforts we pass over pearl after pearl to discover a little bit of natural gas.

[Rohan Princess]

You may be right Parthian King, but as I don't go to public school (i homeschool) i don't get many opportunities to discuss other theories with people. I am so interested in the way other people defend certain theories.

[Rohan Princess]

I_Love_Anna, just wondering why would you think the earth is older that 10,000 year because God said to "replenish the earth".

[Rohan Princess]

Wallis, yes I agree with you Genesis 1&2 has a big theological impact, and that is why I continue to defend my 6 day Creation beliefs. However, the historical accuracy of the Bible is very imporant and it does matter weather we were created by God or by aliens (see above, if the Bible is falible how much can you believe?)

[Rohan Princess]

Will post again Charn_Tim have to do a little research!!! lol

[inkspot]

Several Christian organizations make evolution vs. creation a kind of centerpiece for political action, and their adherents are now convinced anything but a 6-day (literal day) creation is anti-biblical.

At the same time, others are convinced that they can crush religion by insisting upon evolution/science, so they have managed to get schools to teach a very flawed evolutionary theory: natural selection.

It would be best if Christians took the view that "creation happened" rather than insisting on seeing Genesis 1-2 as scienve. And it would be better if science stuck with the observable facts. This way, no one need worry about the seeming contrast between the scientific record and the 6-day account, and children would not be forced to learn a bad theory as if it were scientific fact.

And anyway, like the Princess, I enjoy the presentation of everyone's opinion.

[Parthian King]

Inkspot, that is my precisely point. Genesis, in the final analysis, is neither a weapon against atheistic science (in the sense that it beats the empiricists at their own game), nor is it a weapon in the hands of atheistic scientists that can be used to show how childishly absurd the Judeo-Christian worldview is. Tim has argued that the two can harmoniously co-exist--a noble quest. But in my view they are two ships passing in the night. At the end of the day, Genesis 1-2 is a theological narrative--and not to be overly comparative, one of the most breathtaking in the Old Testament. It's kind of sad, really, to see it drafted into the service of armies on both sides of the field, forced to perform polemical tasks it was never really intended to. On the other hand, so long as we recognize that this discussion is tangential, and not the primary concern of the text, I see little harm in it.

And it is not the only passage dealing with creation! One of my favorites is Ecclesiastes 3:11--"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

[Green Knight]

Inkspot, that is my precisely point. Genesis, in the final analysis, is neither a weapon against atheistic science (in the sense that it beats the empiricists at their own game), nor is it a weapon in the hands of atheistic scientists that can be used to show how childishly absurd the Judeo-Christian worldview is. Tim has argued that the two can harmoniously co-exist--a noble quest. But in my view they are two ships passing in the night. At the end of the day, Genesis 1-2 is a theological narrative--and not to be overly comparative, one of the most breathtaking in the Old Testament. It's kind of sad, really, to see it drafted into the service of armies on both sides of the field, forced to perform polemical tasks it was never really intended to. On the other hand, so long as we recognize that this discussion is tangential, and not the primary concern of the text, I see little harm in it.

And it is not the only passage dealing with creation! One of my favorites is Ecclesiastes 3:11--"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end."

Well said.

[Charn_Tim]

Just for the record, I am in total agreement with Parthian King on this point (as well as pretty much the rest of his post :)):


Genesis, in the final analysis, is neither a weapon against atheistic science (in the sense that it beats the empiricists at their own game), nor is it a weapon in the hands of atheistic scientists that can be used to show how childishly absurd the Judeo-Christian worldview is.
I agree that it has been very abused in the past, and I am also in agreement that it is tangential to the text. To me it is analogous to how the 17th century church used the story in Joshua how the sun stood still and how in psalms it says the "Lord set the earth on its foundations, so that it would not be moved" to argue against Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system. That was another case, I believe, how scripture was abused to cause problems with science that weren't there. In this spirit, I feel I ought to give some reason why I take this aspect of Genesis 1/2 so seriously...

Really, the reason that I have spent so much time defending the Genesis 1/2 creation account and modern science is because I have studied science-especially physics and astrophysics-in great detail, and when I tell other scientists or friends in my major or professors or whatever that I am a Christian, generally the first question I get asked is "Do you believe that the universe is billions of years old?" Some want to trap me and others are genuinely curious. At any rate, because I have spent so much time researching this topic, I get to talk about how modern science does not contradict the Bible, especially dispelling the myth that you must either believe in science or the Bible (which we have seen with certain atheists in this forum). In some cases, individuals cannot accept the truth claims of the Bible, because they think that the Bible is contradicted by modern science, and I just argue that this is flat wrong. It also dispells the naive myth that most scientists and many others in intellectual circles have that being a Christian means you don't think (this one really irritates me ;)). What's more, this gives me a chance to discuss my faith with others, using Genesis 1/2 as the starting point and it actually leads to some pretty exciting conversations, if they are willing to listen.

On the other side, many Christians who find out I am a scientist also ask me the same question: "Do you beleive that the universe is billions of years old?" Of course, I must also answer them by showing that the Bible does not teach a 10 000 year old earth by using support from the text alone. That's why I've spent so much time belaboring the point that the Bible does not teach a 144 consecutive hour creation week and a 10 000 year old earth.

So if I wasn't a scientist, I probably wouldn't care that much about it, I would just need to know that when Genesis 1/2 is properly understood, science does not contradict the Bible, and the Bible is not a source of science, and that would be good enough for me. But because I am a scientist, I cannot duck the issue; I care a lot about defending both the Bible and science, and removing any intellectual barriers that non-Christians have for receiving the gospel. Because of this, I must have a proper and detailed defense of the Bible in light of modern science.

[Jack of Blades]

I_Love_Anna, just wondering why would you think the earth is older that 10,000 year because God said to "replenish the earth".
Well I believe that men back during those times lived longer, so I believe that men have lived long enough to last 10,000 years. Also the Dino's Lived before humans and that is why God said to replenish the earth, wich is why I think that the earth is older than than 10,000 years but younger than 65 million years.

[Parthian King]

Also for the record, Tim, I am pretty much always in your court, too. I knew that what I said squared with your position, and that your arguments were tools of your trade as a Christian apologist and scientist. Some might find it surprising, in the light of all this, that in modern apology, the "hard" sciences (chemistry, physics, geology, etc.) are turning out to be the Christian's best friends, while it is the soft sciences (sociology, economics, philosophy, etc.) that are causing the real trouble. Why? Scientists that follow the "hard stuff" still believe in universal truth as a way of life, and at least have the sense to come down decisively on issues (Lewis, BTW, refers to this in Screwtape, remarking about the "sad cases"--for the devil--among physicists). It is the "softies," who see everything as so blooming relative, that make life so hard for Christians. Of course, theology, rightly done, is not without reason dubbed the "Queen of the Sciences."

Tim, I am your friend, and you are mine, in more ways than one.

[Rohan Princess]

Charn_Tim thank you for all you wonderful insights. as both you and i will not sway let us agree to disagree, alright? thanks again for being my brother in Christ

[Charn_Tim]

...the "hard" sciences (chemistry, physics, geology, etc.) are turning out to be the Christian's best friends, while it is the soft sciences (sociology, economics, philosophy, etc.) that are causing the real trouble. Why? Scientists that follow the "hard stuff" still believe in universal truth as a way of life, and at least have the sense to come down decisively on issues (Lewis, BTW, refers to this in Screwtape, remarking about the "sad cases"--for the devil--among physicists). It is the "softies," who see everything as so blooming relative, that make life so hard for Christians.
No kidding!! That's why it saddens me and upsets me so much that some folks in the church have pitted those hard sciences against Christianity. Lewis certainly recognized this, as I read in Screwtape recently. I think this is the quote you are referring to:
"Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean the real sciences) as a defense against Christianity. They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can't touch and see. There have been sad cases among the modern phycisists. If he must dabble in "science", keep him on economics and sociology; don't let him get away from that invaluable 'real life.' But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up on in casual talk and reading is 'the results of modern investigation.'" (Chapter 1, emphasis added).
This is entirely in accordance with my own experience. There are more physicists (and in particular astrophysicists) who are making theistic pronouncements now based on new scientific evidence that has turned up than at any period of time that I know of. Of course, on the other hand, you get many non-scientists talking about science as if it nullifies the Bible. I'm so happy that Lewis recognized this back then, and I think he was absolutely right on with this, as the progressment of modern science has born out.


Of course, theology, rightly done, is not without reason dubbed the "Queen of the Sciences."
I am a scientist, and I am not ashamed to fully agree with this :). Theology is the "Queen of the Sciences" even though it is (now) largely not recognized as such in society and the scientific community, which is unfortunate. One thing that I think is really cool is the striking similarity between the scientific method and the method that theologians use to undergo proper Biblical exegesis, which I think is excellent and makes theology as much of a science in my mind as anything.

[Charn_Tim]

Charn_Tim thank you for all you wonderful insights. as both you and i will not sway let us agree to disagree, alright? thanks again for being my brother in Christ
Your very welcome :)...Sure, that's fine, I think it is very good to at least be exposed to other interpretations of scripture. I realize that you have probably never heard any of the arguments that I have presented before and I guess I hope that you are witholding a final judgment on which interpretation is correct (as opposed to the interpretation of Ken Ham, and others at Answers in Genesis). (*Trying to say this in the least patronizing, gentlest way possible*): I do hope that you remain open to re-examining your beliefs in light of how you think Genesis should be interpreted if you hear other arguments that are indeed more logically cogent.

Thanks again for discussing this with me and God bless you!

[Charn_Tim]

Okay, I am going to do my best to present some scientific evidence for a billions of years old earth and universe for anyone interested. This first set of data is not from astrophysics, but I think it is the easiest to understand and actually the most conclusive in establishing an Earth that is more than thousands of years old. Note: I am paraphrasing from this website (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html) right now; I am having trouble tracking down the primary sources.

One tool that scientists have that at least gives a lower bound on the age of the universe is that of Carbonate deposits from the Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida. What's so special about this? Well, these deposits have layers over 14,500 feet thick, representing 12.4 million years of annual deposits. This is not a tricky method like some claim of radiometric dating; scientists need only count the layers to determine how long ago they have been formed. Another set of evidence is deposits from the Green River, which are annual layers of alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers. Four million of these alternating layers exist. There are several other examples like this including 420,000 year old ice cores from Antarctica.

If I find the primary sources (from the scientific journals) I will add them here, but I don't want to spend that much time on it right now, and I can tell you that I have heard arguments like this from many different people, not just this one website.

[Charn_Tim]

Wow, this is way harder than I thought. Okay, I absolutely hate doing this, but I just have to refer you to websites to avoid spending hours breaking down the evidence into manageable pieces myself. I went searching around to see if anyone had actually tried to explain astrophysical evidence for an old universe in layman's terms, and I found this article (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html) which I find useful in listing the scientific techniques, but not actually in explaining them. Here is another website (http://www.evolutionpages.com/age_universe_astro.htm) that tries to explain how evidence from Globular cluster and Red Giant observation provides evidence for an old earth, which I think is very helpful, but also very long.

I guess what I really mean by "the evidence from astrophysics is overwhelming" is that there are so many independent measuring techniques that all say the same thing and are all perfectly consistent with one another. I actually find it analogous to the situation of the missing original Biblical texts, in that as far as I know (others who know more than me, correct me if I'm wrong) no original Biblical texts remain to this day. So are we totally lost? Absolutely not; we have several thousand documents from different areas of the world that all say almost exactly the same thing, so when we figure out what was exactly in those original documents, we are sure that we can get it at least about 99.9 % correct that we are reading what the original authors wrote. In my mind, it's the same way with the scientific evidence in this case.

So, maybe if one would like more detail on a specific measurement technique that astrophysicists use, such as how "Supernova standard candles indicate that the universe is a minimum of 12 billion years old" I can try to break down the science for you here. But honestly, some of these measurement techniques rely on so many other intermediate steps to build up the theory that it makes in extremely difficult to explain. For example, to elucidate how "the Doppler effect indicates that the universe is billions of years old" one would have to know at least something about special relativity, and as I presume most of you don't, I would have to lay the groundwork of the theory out for you: state the two postulates of special relativity (and perhaps give evidence for them), show how this gives the time dilation and length contraction formulas, show how it leads to the lorentz transformation equations, show how that leads to the relativistic correction to the classical doppler shift to show that the relativistic doppler shift works. Then I would have to explain how we use the relativistic doppler shift to conduct experiments and interpret the data from galaxies, quasars, or other deep sky objects.

Well, I hope at least my last post gave some sense of how to demonstrate that the earth is at least in the millions of years old, although it is not evidence from astrophysics or for the universe. Maybe sometime down the line I will write a book that breaks down and explains the scientific evidence for laymen in great detail, so they won't have to go directly to an astronomy or physics textbook or the astrophysics journals. But actually, I would really like to spend my time finding evidence for design in nature from astrophysics, which is much easier to explain and easier to elucidate to the layperson...maybe I can do that next.

AHHH, I really hate bailing out like this, but I just don't have the time right now. Sorry this was so inadequate (to inkspot especially), I just wish it was easier to understand and explain...

[Wallis]

Rohan Princess,

Regarding "infallible" would require a separate thread, I am sure.

First, we would have to define the word "infallible" so that most of us would agree.

Second, we would have to understand how the word "infallible" affects us individually, whether the area most affected is theological, philosophical, or historical in context.

[Rohan Princess]

probably yeah a different thread...anyway what I ment was without error (the Bible)

[Moe92]

I believe in God the Father. Cuz, He's a great guy. :D

[inkspot]

I believe in God the Father. Cuz, He's a great guy. :D
Welcome, Moe. I agree with you ...

Tim, I think you did a good job, and when I am back where I can connect via cable, I will check out the links you suggest. The other stuff, on the sediment layers, was easy to understand, and I thank you.

PK, I agree with what you are saying .... I think I am saying we have to go back to square one with some fundamentalist Christians, prove to them that the observable facts of science do not conflict with the Bible, and then we can move forward without Christians dragging their feet over unimportant issues (a day is a day is a day) and without atheists saying, "If you believe the Bible, then you don't believe science ..."

[chuam8919]

I know that there have been threads like this before, but now it's going to be a bit more specific. Now it's focused on Christians. Should we try to unify Creationism and Evolutionism? I, for one, think it's impossible.

I used to be like many people who thought that we could take the days in Genesis 1 and 2 and somehow twist it to mean six indefinite periods of time for evolution to occur. Now I know that God did mean what He said in Genesis 1 and 2 when He mentioned the days. That they are six literal days of creation.

[Aslan's Son]

Christianity and evolution don't mix. Evolution goes against the fact that God created the world in six days, by his own hands and hard work. I've heard of people trying to say that God may have used evolution during the Creation (thus the unbeliever's attempt to distort the Word of God), but the Bible makes no mention of him doing so. He spoke animals into being, and made man from dust. So no, I don't think it's possible for the two to mix. And besides that, Charles Darwin became saved on his deathbed (he recanted his theory of evolution and all he said), though non-Christians try to ignore that and disregard it.

[EveningStar]

An inflexible reading of Genesis may rob you of some of the richness of both our world and the way God operates in it.

I am not persuading you to adopt point A, B, or compromise.

I just want you to realize that the original wording of Genesis in Hebrew is "In the beginning of what is," and it refers to the beginning of "this" rather than the absolute beginning of anything that ever existed now or at any time whatever. The wording does not preclude that other entire worlds were created, grew old, and were ended long before God made this one.

And so let me ask you...if you go by the traditional idea that God made stuff appear out of nothing, that is actually contradicted by Genesis' own assertion that there were chaotic waters, sky, and land and that God moved over these chaotic elements and put the sky up, the waters aside, and the land exposed. It does not even say he MADE them. Please do not react by saying, "Oh it's in there somewhere." It's not. And I say this as a conservative Christian with a heavy background in theology.

So please do not analyze every semicolon and come to unyielding opinions that mark any disagreement as heresy.

There are some people whose faith might be destroyed entirely because they cannot reconcile your views with the fossil record. It is unfair to ask someone on a spiritual journey to instantly arrive where you are even if you feel it is the right place to be. And too hard a shove might unintentionally push people away. It may give the wrong impression of Christianity and Christians.

Open your mind and heart. Let God and nature speak to you unfettered by preconceived notions. And whatever you decide, be faithful to it and let God bless you for your faith, wherever it leads you. I'm not telling you what to believe, only to be careful in drawing lines in the sand. Lines in the sand have led to much blood and little lasting good.

In Jesus' name,

John Burkitt

[chuam8919]

An inflexible reading of Genesis may rob you of some of the richness of both our world and the way God operates in it.

I am not persuading you to adopt point A, B, or compromise.

I just want you to realize that the original wording of Genesis in Hebrew is "In the beginning of what is," and it refers to the beginning of "this" rather than the absolute beginning of anything that ever existed now or at any time whatever. The wording does not preclude that other entire worlds were created, grew old, and were ended long before God made this one.

And so let me ask you...if you go by the traditional idea that God made stuff appear out of nothing, that is actually contradicted by Genesis' own assertion that there were chaotic waters, sky, and land and that God moved over these chaotic elements and put the sky up, the waters aside, and the land exposed. It does not even say he MADE them. Please do not react by saying, "Oh it's in there somewhere." It's not. And I say this as a conservative Christian with a heavy background in theology.

So please do not analyze every semicolon and come to unyielding opinions that mark any disagreement as heresy.

There are some people whose faith might be destroyed entirely because they cannot reconcile your views with the fossil record. It is unfair to ask someone on a spiritual journey to instantly arrive where you are even if you feel it is the right place to be. And too hard a shove might unintentionally push people away. It may give the wrong impression of Christianity and Christians.I have to say that that isn't a good analysis of Genesis. What you forget is the cosmos. The stars weren't created until the 4th day. In other words, the Earth was created before the galaxies we now see.

So, looking back at Genesis 1:1, Earth and Heaven were the sole things were in being at first. And there's the issue of light. Light came before any stars or sun. Science claims it's impossible.

Before I continue, I have to point out that the fossil record claimed to be so accurate is as accurate as a one-year old being able to hit the bullseye at archery 50 times in a row. There's the dangerous assumption of uniform decay rates. There's too many problems with the dating methods. If you take one bone of a T-rex and date it with one method, and date another part of the same T-rex skeleton using the same method, you'll get vastly different date times. Besides, you can easily get a fossilized straw hat in 50 years!

If you look at the Big Bang Theory and evolution, there's a definite difference in the Bible's account and the evolution theory. One is the sun issue. Another is dry land before sea as stated in evolution. In Genesis, it's sea before dry land. Evolution also promotes the idea of death before man. In Genesis, it's man before death. Evolution also states that reptiles came before birds. The Bible says that birds came before reptiles.

Before anyone talks about how accurate the dating methods are, it is quintessential to read Robert V. Gentry's work on pleochroic polonium halos in his book 'Fingerprints of Creation' available at www.halos.com for free viewing. Once you read all his work, you would be strange if you continue saying that the earth is as old as evolutionists claim it to be. Rather, from his experiments (even one that could have been used to find a much better way of disposing radioactive waste, if Oak Ridge carried on funding him), there's undeniable actual scientific proof of a young earth (though that does not establish that God was in it, rather that a miraculous situation happened by some medium. and that's where the worldview comes in).

Chakal, it would be much better if you could post one definite proof that the Bible can be reconciled with evolution. As we can already see in Genesis, evolution cannot be reconciled with all that topsy-turvy facts. And we know that the Bible is the one true source from which we have our worldview. Just to mention it's reliability, the Bible had said the earth is spherical in shape centuries before any philosopher or "scientist" (in the ancient times, there weren't exactly scientists).

[Saruman]

I just want you to realize that the original wording of Genesis in Hebrew is "In the beginning of what is," and it refers to the beginning of "this" rather than the absolute beginning of anything that ever existed now or at any time whatever. The wording does not preclude that other entire worlds were created, grew old, and were ended long before God made this one.

I know these topics are very sensitive, and have been the cause of much division and strife. In seeking to comment on some of these thoughts from an awesome brother, and to share thoughts of my own, I don't wish to demean anybody. Rather, I wish to consider all these things at an equally flexible angle.

Why not take God's Word as it is?

Chakal, I agree with the translation that Genesis 1:1 is written as "in beginning, God..." We know God has no beginning, and that He has no end. We know that He is the Beginning, and that He is the end. However, I wish to ask you something, if I may. If, when reading the first chapter of Genesis, you come even to some remote conclusion that there (possibly) were worlds, etc., that "were created, grew old, and were ended long before God made this one," would you then deny that God made everything perfect in the beginning, stainless and without spot? For something to "grow old" and "die" or "end" must implicate that something has already been created, and that somehow imperfectly. According to this sort of speculation, there must have been another occurrence of sin somewhere in the pre-Genesis account that brought these other worlds, times and places to some end (all of this, of course, being within the realm of conjecture). If we arrive to a basic understanding and a conclusion that God is perfect and blameless, without stain and spot, how then does it become possible even to imagine that there could have been things or beings living before, growing old, and are long ended? Obviously we know God created the angels and heaven, and these things were in existence before the creation of this universe and of this earth. But why speculate beyond what we are given by God? God never made mention that He had created any other universe or worlds before these. As a Christian, I believe it wise for myself to exercise prudence and not be given over to any conjecturing that goes beyond the scope of His Word. He has given me all that I require in this life in His Word.

And so let me ask you...if you go by the traditional idea that God made stuff appear out of nothing, that is actually contradicted by Genesis' own assertion that there were chaotic waters, sky, and land and that God moved over these chaotic elements and put the sky up, the waters aside, and the land exposed.

From what I have learned, there is a term used in Genesis to refer to something created out of nothing; the Hebrew term in Genesis is bara, to create something out of nothing, which we read in Genesis 1:1. Where do we learn of the element of chaos in Genesis?

It does not even say he MADE them. Please do not react by saying, "Oh it's in there somewhere." It's not. And I say this as a conservative Christian with a heavy background in theology.

If we carefully read and consider Genesis, even the very first verse, we come to understand, quite simply, that God "created the heaven and the earth." Throughout the first two chapters we also come to read statements such as, "And God made," "And God said," "And God called," "the evening and the morning," etc. These statements are crucial factors to help us understand what exactly happened in this very short period of time. All along God was there, creating things in His fashion according to His will and His purpose.

I could ask why we don't even consider God creating everything in just one word. God can do anything He wants, however He wants, and as He wills. And we know that God does all things with (a) purpose(s) in mind. I believe in considering these facts, it lays the groundwork for how we must consider and regard the rest of God's Word.

There are some people whose faith might be destroyed entirely because they cannot reconcile your views with the fossil record. It is unfair to ask someone on a spiritual journey to instantly arrive where you are even if you feel it is the right place to be. And too hard a shove might unintentionally push people away. It may give the wrong impression of Christianity and Christians.

Chakal, isn't it just possible that what men have come to conclude re the "fossil record" may actually be in extreme error? I wish to ask you another question regarding God's Word. If we can't take the Word of God at face value in certain places, particularly if it indicates there were six literal days and on the seventh day God rested from His work, when can we take the word day to mean day in the Bible?

Speaking for myself, I believe it would destroy my faith to compromise what has been given to me by God with what men have come to conclude based upon their own devices and what limited knowledge they possess. If Christians come to conclude that God must have taken billions of years because man has given us conclusive evidence to suggest an evolution of some sort (and we just can't leave God out of the picture anyway), God must therefore have created all things very slowly, over long periods of time and in a manner of chaos that goes against His very nature as we learn of it in the Bible.

I'm not telling you what to believe, only to be careful in drawing lines in the sand. Lines in the sand have led to much blood and little lasting good.

I couldn't agree more with this, Chakal. I wish to echo your words here also. We all ought to be open-minded to weighing and balancing everything we discuss. And, as Christians, I believe we need to weigh and balance everything this world has to offer in light of the Word of God.

In the end, I freely admit I am no expert theologian or scientist, and that my knowledge only goes so far and so deep. Yet when it comes to the Word of God, I am not willing to compromise it for a moment with anything this world has to offer to me, even so far as to tell me Genesis means something entirely different than what has been recorded for us.

I ask a few questions to end my thoughts: Why wouldn't or couldn't God create the world in six literal days as is written? Is there a reason we need to believe otherwise? What is the catch?

[Euphrates]

What do you think happened when "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light" (Genesis 1:3)? Was that when God created the sun, or was that light from somewhere else or just from God Himself? It seems like God created the sun around Genesis 1:16, which was the fourth day.

This is an important question because it deals with what is meant by a day. When we say "a day" we mean "one rotation of the earth around the sun" or "a period of 24 hours (which is determined by a rotation around the sun)". It is not clear, then, how there could have been any "days" properly speaking if there was no sun.

The only explanation I have is that the first chapter of Genesis is not talking about the kind of days that we are used to. In fact, I think that the author of Genesis would have had a very difficult time using human words to describe the events inspired in his mind by God. Like describing a sunset, but 1000 times harder. It only makes sense that the author of Genesis would explain things in a way familiar to him... using days. I imagine that God inspired the author of Genesis to see the creation process that God was controlling which people often call evolution.

[EveningStar]

Let me share something with you that I believe you have overlooked. I believe you overlooked it because it never occurred to you, not because you couldn't grasp it. I think you can.

We think of time linearly as a rope that stretches endlessly into the past and endlessly into the future in a straight line, then we basically are looking at an undefined quantity, much like division with zero. We SAY God has always been here, but what we THINK is of motion along the rope of time further into the past looking for a moment without God and not finding it, but with an infinite task ahead of us unless we just get tired and give up the search. We cannot, as limited humans, grasp an infinitely long rope and experience its entirity, we can only roughly imagine that it "keeps going" where in fact the rope is not GOING anywhere any more than the point and eraser of one pencil on my desk is "going" anywhere. The rope is still, only we go. We mentally assent to the fact that the rope sits there as does the pencil, but we cannot picture it properly.

So if the rope is straight and "going" forever forward and forever back, that leads us to the unimaginable that you suggest so well-meaningly. That God literally waited FOREVER doing nothing, then one day made the entire universe perfectly, it will pass away, and then God will spend another forever never doing it again. If I were God, I might do my office work like this. What a setup folks! No more paperwork. Piff!

That to me is unimaginable, and I'll tell you why. First off it indicates to me that it took God an ETERNITY (in other words an unmeasurable and infinitely long stretch) to plan creation, a plan that is undefined because it had no beginning, then that there was one MOMENT in which God had completed an INIFINITELY LONG calculation (which cannot be broken into discrete steps or there would be an eternity between them and no way to put them in order), and at this proptious moment he acted. With uncharacteristic haste.

I had to smile when you said "created the ENTIRE universe at once". Of course he did. Absolutely he did. That was not my point dear friends. I'm not talking about little green men on Mars or other galaxies. I'm talking about universes. And not sets of universes that exist side by side like, presumably our universe and Narnia. NO I mean something far more vast. The idea that there were previous Geneses leading to previous revelations, previous let there be lights followed by previous judgment days. The whole of everything...previously. Utterly gone. ALMOST without a trace.

So who is the trace? Some of the angels. Quite possibly the saints of previous universes. Some of them quite possibly BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of years old.

That is the idea that God has ALWAYS been doing something and that he will ALWAYS stay busy. The need to explain how God did nothing at all for an infinitely long period of time and decided in one moment to suddenly change everything GOES AWAY.

Before you reference Genesis, the book deals with our world. THIS world. It makes no reference that either endorses or precludes this theory.

Now take that infinitely long rope...we can do something marvelous with it. We can bend it into a ring, a snake biting its tail. It too never begins and never ends. In fact it is one of the ancient symbols of eternity. This ring is time as a volume not a line. God is in the center and sees all parts of it at once, thus he is in all times and can at any moment direct his attention to any part of the ring. This not only explains how prophesy works (because the future already exists!) but also explains why time is different for God who sits in the middle than it is for us linear time beings who are only allowed at this point to travel along it CLOCKWISE without pausing or turning back.

There are two possible arguements this brings into play. The first is that in fact there were several creations, and the second is that our one creation, by virtue of the fact that all times exist at once, has ALWAYS been there and God does not appear to be either a slacker or arbitrary after all.

The purpose of my first post was not to either encourage or deny evolution. I wanted to shake you guys up a bit. I wanted you to see the complex dynamics of the arguement. Now settle it if you can. But do so realizing that it is a huge and daunting task, not as simple as saying, "you skipped a verse."

Yes, in fact, we see "fiat lux," or "let there be light." And there was light! But Biblical scholars are in near unanimous agreement that the book of Genesis starts out as God bringing order from chaos and does not presume to explain the origin of chaos. I personally believe the "stuff" of chaos has either 1) been made by Him, or 2) always existed alongside Him.

Ok, so I opened a can of worms. What could I possibly mean by ALWAYS EXISTED alongside Him?

The idea that the "stuff" of the universe is (drumroll) God's physical body as naturally and normally as you having a physical body. And that God's body, like ours, answers to the commands of thought.

Do I expect you to believe this? Well, frankly, no. Do I believe this? I refuse to say. I just want you to be aware of this and to deal with it.

Remember the Einstein Corrolary, "Make the universe as simple as possible, BUT NO SIMPLER."

What is the purpose of this exercise? I want you to understand the bewildering landscape of science, philosophy and faith confronting modern man and not think of "Creative Evolution" as a mere attempt to fudge.

As for me, well, you've heard me call myself a "conservative Christian." I still do. Draw your own conclusions. I won't make it easy for you to pigeonhole me, for pigeonholing is the first step to sidelining me from the arguement. "Oh he's one of THOSE." PLUNK. Pigeonholed. In case you haven't caught on, I HATE BEING PIGEONHOLED! ;)

In general I have no faith that threads like these solve ANY of the world's problems, much less ALL of them. Don't take it too seriously. Have a good time, but don't be disappointed if Skandar Keynes does not suddenly call you up sobbing and saying, "I was, like, so WRONG, dude! Thank you, thank you!"

Love of Christ be with you,

John B.

[chuam8919]

So if the rope is straight and "going" forever forward and forever back, that leads us to the unimaginable that you suggest well-meaningly. That God literally waited FOREVER doing nothing, then one day made the entire universe perfectly, it will pass away, and then God will spend another forever never doing it again.That's where you've hit the wrong mark, Chakal. What makes you think after Jesus comes to make a new earth after us spending the millenia in heaven, that the new earth will perish? That's what is implied here. That God creates, and it dies off. One perfect example of God being able to maintain things are the Israelites' clothing when wandering for the many years in the wilderness. Their clothes did wear off, and their sandals did not succumb to wear and tear. In fact, if there was a shoe-making industry there, not one shoe would have been sold. They wore those same sandals for those many years. Since God can do that, and it's sin that decays this world, the new earth would not ever perish. What you've said sounds like one of those Big Implosion Theories. That there were previous Big Bangs that ended up with the universe collapsing back on itself to "bang" open again.

[Ephinie]

Having grown up in a homeschooled family (where three years were spent at a conservative, Baptist Christian school), I was never taught evolution in school except in an incredibly biased point of view. So in other words, the only bits of evolution I was ever presented were the parts that don't make sense; and it was only used to show us how silly and uneducated evolutionists really were. What my reaction to all of this was goes beyond the scope of this post.

I then went away to an evangelical Christian university; and it was here, for the first time, that evolution was presented to me as a viable concept. So what was my reaction to that? It was a little confusing, of course. I had always be taught that people who believed in theistic evolution were not really Christians. It is a harsh statement, but the reasoning behind it is that they obviously did not believe what the Bible said. But here I found myself amongst a lot of people who, not only had been Christians for a lot longer than I, but had been alive in general for a lot longer than I. And yet they believed views other than the narrow-minded, young-earth, six day creation theory. So how was this possible?

It is possible, quite simply, because Christians who deny the six day-young earth view of creation interpret Genesis 1 differently. I don't doubt that the Bible can be reconciled with any view anywhere from six-day, young earth theory all the way to full out evolution... and any theory in between. The reason is because there are Christians who have done it. Of course, one may say they are in error; and that is fine if that is your opinion. Believe what you believe is right. Just remember this: no theory of creation or evolution or of how the world came into existence in general is essential to or negates our salvation. It is just one of those many more fine points of doctrines for Christians to disagree on.

All that being said, here is a view of the creation account that was presented to me in a class called Essential Christianity.

In olden days, not everyone knew how to read. A lot of times, they relied on memory of what they had been told to recall things. So it wouldn't be all that surprising if stories used memory devices to get their points across. In the days of the creation account, you can see a very clear pattern.

Day 1 - light, Day 4 - heavenly bodies
Day 2 - air and sea, Day 5 - fish and birds
Day 3 - vegetation, Day 6 - man and beasts
Day 7 -rest

Every day in the creation account, aside from the day of rest, comes in a pair. Form follows function. It's a memory device. It was told as days like this so that people would remember it. And one last thought, the important part about this story is that GOD CREATED. If some of us think these are literal, 24 hour day periods, that's fine. (Though personally, I think this view demonstrates a misunderstanding of the essence of time in general, but that's just me). If some of us think each day of creation was a metaphore for a physically longer period of time wherein things evolved, that's fine. If some of us think that this account of creation is just a poetic rendering of God's creative work, that's fine, too. As Christians, we all agree that God created the earth and the entire universe. It isn't necessary to know all the details.

[EveningStar]

Ah, but you said I was "Wrong" without considering that I threw out three or four different ideas and intentionally was ambiguous about which one I said I believed. AM I WRONG? You don't know yet. I intentionally withheld that information. But having realized since then we have a seventh-day adventist here, I understand and sympathize how my message must have smacked you mightily without intending.

First off, the "New Heavens and New Earth" is completely consistent with the idea of time in a RING rather than a LINE. It's actually rather tidy if the old heavens and earth and the new one exist in God's perspective, and that we travel from one to the other the way the Israelites travelled from Egypt to Israel in the Exodus. Time, for us, is therefore a journey from one place to another rather than one place dropping on top of another. The end of the world is much like a sign that says "You are now leaving Washoe County" and the beginning of the next like a sign that says "Welcome to Aslan County. The Lion's Club Welcomes you" (pun intended). Theoretically you could turn the car around, but our cars, in this life, don't reverse. Matter of factly, there is no single thing about non-linear time that directly contradicts the doctrines of seventh-day adventism except that you might have an even harder time knowing what day to take off each week. :rolleyes:

Deal with the idea of the eternal before and the eternal after using linear time and I will be truly impressed...and shocked. Time as a ring makes sense to me. That time is a plane...or better, a volume...with God in the center of it where he can go not only to anyWHERE but anyWHEN. Prophesy is as simple as telling someone travelling northwards in Tennessee that Kentucky will come to past. I've fulfiled that prophesy...I used to shop in Bowling Green to avoid Tennessee's high sales taxes.... ;)

"Beginning" and "End" are concepts for people bound to time. Since God is not bound to time, "Everlasting" simply means "everywhere," the way 4+6 is 10...a true fact and one that is everlasting because it is true throughout the landscape of time. In a universe where time is a volume, time does not travel, we travel, and as we pass through it, "time passes" much as the trees whiz past our car on the highway. I promise you, ladies and gentlemen, that no tree has EVER whizzed past you on the highway, YOU passed IT. Why we experience linear time is known only to God. He has his reasons, I'm sure.

If time is indeed a landscape, than things like "God always existed" and "We will live on forever" go from baffling mystical concepts to the idea that God is free to roam around the volume of "All-Time" without the limits that bind us to linear time. I believe Heaven will be in "All-Time" for us where we can experience not only anyWHERE but anyWHEN. I look forward to that simply because forward is the only direction I can go at the moment... :D

That is not an unbiblical view. The Bible is neutral on whether or not time is linear. That is not a pro- or anti-evolutionary view. I have not sounded on on six days or six eras. The Bible does, however, mention the "end of time," which to me means we will definitely break the chains binding us to linear time and roam God's Heaven not only from side to side but beginning to end...and back. It is not that time will end (which means you can't arrange events in order...that's CHAOS!) but that linear time will end. That ageing will end. That LATE and EARLY will end. Time will take its proper place in our lives as a filing system. God's way of keeping everything from happening at once.

LASTLY, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am having fun here and hopefully will learn something by sharpening of iron against iron. The nature of time is not a matter of salvation. You won't go to perdition if you are wrong about time. Neither will I. God will have a big laugh about it and remind us that the Apostle Paul thought the world was flat!

[Rohan Princess]

okay, i have been to lazy to read every single post previous. i believe God created the world in six (24-hour periods, for those of you who would interpret any differently)days, and continues to sustain us. i know it is not a salvation issues, but i think it is very important. ...and i love reading what you have to say.

[EveningStar]

Now THAT post makes a lot of sense. You enjoy hearing what we have to say. For ME that's the point of the whole discussion. I'm not God's special marine out there in the trenches fighting to save your soul from "THEM", I'm a friendly and curious fellow interested in seeing a truly three dimensional discussion of how you folks feel about how we arrived and where we're going.

[inkspot]

I went ahead and merged this with another evolution thread BECAUSE: Charn Tim is a Christian (and a smartie!) who believes in the gradual progression of Creation, at least of the universe and the earth. I think his reasoning is sound, and that believing the earth is older than what some creationists claim is a theory which can be entirely acceptable to Christians.

[Charn_Tim]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, inkspot, that was really nice :)

I have already posted at length regarding this in the last 30 pages or so of this thread, but I think I should just restate the basic position I was trying to argue for here, in the hope that it may be of help to some.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Part of this is a restatement of earlier posts)

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 that has been translated into Englilsh is the word "Yom." What's important to remember is that the Hebrew vocabulary is much smaller than the English vocabulary, so the same word in Hebrew is used to mean many different things. For example, the Hebrew word, "father" is the same word they use for father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. In the case of "yom" it has been used in the old testament to mean one of 4 things (as far as I can tell):

1) a 12 hour time period, from sunrise to sunset.
2) a 24 hour time period, from sunrise, to sunrise.
3) a time set apart for some purpose of God, ex: "The Day of Atonement" (see Lev. 23:27, for example).
4) an "age" or "eon"-from months to years to millions of years, etc. which certain comprehensive purposes of God are to be accomplished. Ex: Joel chapters 1 and 2, Zephaniah chapters 1 and 2, Malachi 3:17 & 4:1, and there are many others.

So, as PrinceOfTheWest says (post (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=27&pp=10) #262), "To be open to understanding the many ways in which the Scriptures use a term like "day" is not to undermine their authority or authenticity."

So the question now is, how should we interpret "yom" in Genesis 1? I think a pretty compelling case can be made from exclusively within scripture for why the time periods are longer than 24 hours.


Consider Day 7: At the end of each day, the phrase, and there was "evening and morning, day x." If in the context of Genesis 1, "day" = 24 hours, then of course it follows that day 7 = 24 hours. Then there should have been the phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, day 7" since the 24 hours would have begun and ended. However, there is no such phrase to "conclude" day 7. Thus, according to Genesis 1, the present "day" we are currently in is day 7, God's day of rest. Thus, necessarily, day 7 is longer than 24 hours, so there is no reason the other days shouldn't also be longer than 24 hours.
It doesn't make sense to claim that days 1, 2, and 3 are 24 hour days, because the sun hadn't even been created yet. So why would a day in this context equal a 24 hour earth "day", when "day" hadn't even been defined as 24 hours yet.
In the NASB translation Genesis 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven." (Emphasis added). This verse summarizes the creation account and a more literal Hebrew translation reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making..." (Emphasis added again). So if one is to require a day = 24 hour interpretation of Genesis, then one is left with flat contradiction from within the text itself, between Genesis 1 and 2 (i.e. 24 hours = 144 hours). Thus, the only way to make this statement make any sense is that we interpret "yom" to not be a time period longer than 24 hours.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ephine, I really liked the point you made about the Hebrew culture being an oral tradition. I would assert that the reason the Genesis creation account was written the way it was, is to make it easier to remember for the Hebrew culture, not to give us a modern 21st century scientific account of the origins of the cosmos. Modern scientific cosmology is a tool to understanding the universe which has only been in existence for the past 80 - 100 years or so. Human understanding has only just begun to progress to the point where it was even possible to examine these sorts of questions.

Because the Genesis creation account was written to be an accurate portrayal of the creation of the universe and to be meaningful to all people at all times in history, it is necessarily written in as simple as terms as possible. The details, time periods, and cosmic evolutionary history were simply not important to the vast majority of individuals in the past, so there would be no reason to communicate these details in Genesis 1. It is simply amazing and miraculous to me, that modern science actually supports what's written in Genesis 1 (especially in the order of creation events-this is perfectly aligned with planetary science and the fossil record), in light of our recent explosion in human knowledge regarding the physical world.

[inkspot]

Thank you, Tim! That was a very succinct restatement for those who do not care to read the many pages of posting. Now, Chuam, if you have any thoughts as to why Tim's argument is unsound from a Christian perspective, you could toss them in here.

[Dernhelm]

:D

That was great!

[chuam8919]

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 that has been translated into Englilsh is the word "Yom." What's important to remember is that the Hebrew vocabulary is much smaller than the English vocabulary, so the same word in Hebrew is used to mean many different things. For example, the Hebrew word, "father" is the same word they use for father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. In the case of "yom" it has been used in the old testament to mean one of 4 things (as far as I can tell):

1) a 12 hour time period, from sunrise to sunset.
2) a 24 hour time period, from sunrise, to sunrise.
3) a time set apart for some purpose of God, ex: "The Day of Atonement" (see Lev. 23:27, for example).
4) an "age" or "eon"-from months to years to millions of years, etc. which certain comprehensive purposes of God are to be accomplished. Ex: Joel chapters 1 and 2, Zephaniah chapters 1 and 2, Malachi 3:17 & 4:1, and there are many others.You are aware that using those aren't valid for this argument? They're prophecies! A time period when using the word day in prophecy, is Bible symbol for a literal year. (Don't ask for that now because that's off-topic)

So, as PrinceOfTheWest says (post (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=27&pp=10) #262), "To be open to understanding the many ways in which the Scriptures use a term like "day" is not to undermine their authority or authenticity."

So the question now is, how should we interpret "yom" in Genesis 1? I think a pretty compelling case can be made from exclusively within scripture for why the time periods are longer than 24 hours.

[list]
Consider Day 7: At the end of each day, the phrase, and there was "evening and morning, day x." If in the context of Genesis 1, "day" = 24 hours, then of course it follows that day 7 = 24 hours. Then there should have been the phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, day 7" since the 24 hours would have begun and ended. However, there is no such phrase to "conclude" day 7. Thus, according to Genesis 1, the present "day" we are currently in is day 7, God's day of rest. Thus, necessarily, day 7 is longer than 24 hours, so there is no reason the other days shouldn't also be longer than 24 hours.
That's an inacurrate analysis (again, my opinion, so don't go bashing me:P ). Notice the difference between the first six days and the seventh. What's the difference? The difference is that there was no creation on the seventh day. And note that the pattern "evening and morning" ends because that's the last day of the week and so there wasn't an "evening and morning" leading to a new day of creation. The cycle was completed. (I know, that's a rudimentary explanation)

It doesn't make sense to claim that days 1, 2, and 3 are 24 hour days, because the earth hadn't even been created yet. So why would a day in this context equal a 24 hour earth "day", when "day" hadn't even been defined as 24 hours yet.Big mistake I have to point out. The earth(the planet) had already been created. The only things in the six days of creation that were added were land and vegetation and living organisms. You don't need land for earth to be earth. It's still the planet!

In the NASB translation Genesis 2:4 says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven." (Emphasis added). This verse summarizes the creation account and a more literal Hebrew translation reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making..." (Emphasis added again). So if one is to require a day = 24 hour interpretation of Genesis, then one is left with flat contradiction from within the text itself, between Genesis 1 and 2 (i.e. 24 hours = 144 hours). Thus, the only way to make this statement make any sense is that we interpret "yom" to not be a time period longer than 24 hours.That's a wrong concept, Charn_Tim. God made the earth before the six days of creation of land and vegetation and living organisms. that's what it means. In case you didn't notice, Genesis 2 is the expansion of what happened during creation in Genesis 1, focusing on the sixth day when God made Adam and Eve. So in Genesis 2, when it says "in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth", it's the same as Genesis 1:1! What it means (as it appears to be) that God made the earth before creating light, darkness, land, vegetation, and living organisms. And as it did not involve the actual creation of things to be added in the earth and the heavens, it was separate from what we call the six days of creation.

If you take what I just said and fit it into the Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20, it makes perfect sense! God in the Ten Commandments wasn't talking about six figurative periods of time. Prior to that, God had persistently kept calling the seventh day as the Sabbath, the exact same name He called the seventh day of creation (nothing was created, but a day was made to be set aside. that's why it's still called "creation"). Besides, the evolutionists are blatantly attempting to be ignorant about the dating methods they use. They simply say that there's no reason to question the uniformitarian principle. Why? Because they know that if it's proven wrong, the whole evolutionary web melts into oblivion! To be even more irritating, they refuse to accept any actual proofs against the uniformitarian principle. They simply say "oh, it must be wrong.", when they don't even redo the experiments documented! That's what they're supposed to do if they've got issues with a scientific report. They're not supposed to just say "it's wrong" without actually proving it wrong.

To all Christians who try to reconcile the idea of evolution and creation: what are you going to do when the part of the scientific community that is evolutionist finally accpets (that's likely to never happen) that the uniformitarian principle is wrong? There is literature that proves it wrong. Search, and you will find. I still recommend Robert Gentry's work. It's so far not been successfully refuted. And, for the Americans here, Congress actually took notice of his work on Helium Retention Rates that secretly disproves the idea that the earth is old.

[Charn_Tim]

You are aware that using those aren't valid for this argument? They're prophecies! A time period when using the word day in prophecy, is Bible symbol for a literal year. (Don't ask for that now because that's off-topic)
How does the conclusion that "these scripture references are not valid for this argument" follow from the fact that some of these scipture references are from prophecies? Are the prophets on any less of a footing than other parts of scripture? That doesn't make any sense to me. Where the references are from has nothing to do with the FACT that in other places of scripture, a "day" (yom) refers to a longer period of time than a 24 hour time period. So why should we insist on one meaning of "yom" (24 hours) over the others, and reject creation models that require a longer time scale?

That's an inacurrate analysis (again, my opinion, so don't go bashing me:P ). Notice the difference between the first six days and the seventh. What's the difference? The difference is that there was no creation on the seventh day. And note that the pattern "evening and morning" ends because that's the last day of the week and so there wasn't an "evening and morning" leading to a new day of creation. The cycle was completed. (I know, that's a rudimentary explanation)
LOL - is it really necessary in an argument to start off by saying, "That's an inacurrate analysis"? Why don't you just argue why you're right instead of saying that?

I am making the inductive argument that after each day the phrase, "And there was evening, and there was morning, day x" follows. Since day 7 does not have this phrase following it, it must not have ended yet. Where in the text does it say that the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" should follow only those days in which a creation event takes place? My argument is not a deductive one; hence, I am arguing that given that the 6 days all had the evening and morning phrase following them, it is highly probable that if day 7 was meant to be 24 hours, then the evening morning phrase should have followed it as well. Thus, I maintain that it is strong evidence that the days are not necessarily 24 hour time periods.

Big mistake I have to point out. The earth(the planet) had already been created. The only things in the six days of creation that were added were land and vegetation and living organisms. You don't need land for earth to be earth. It's still the planet!
Oops, I meant to say, "The Sun hadn't been created yet." (I changed that in my original post too). So my argument is that if the sun hadn't have been created yet, why would the definition of a day be 24 hours - from sunrise to sunrise? There is no reason it should be.

God made the earth before the six days of creation of land and vegetation and living organisms. that's what it means. In case you didn't notice, Genesis 2 is the expansion of what happened during creation in Genesis 1, focusing on the sixth day when God made Adam and Eve.
Oh, don't worry, I think I picked up on the fact that Genesis 2 was a summarization (not an expansion) of the creation story of Genesis 1.

So in Genesis 2, when it says "in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth", it's the same as Genesis 1:1! What it means (as it appears to be) that God made the earth before creating light, darkness, land, vegetation, and living organisms. And as it did not involve the actual creation of things to be added in the earth and the heavens, it was separate from what we call the six days of creation.

You state this as though it necessarily follows from the text that the "day" in Genesis 2:4 directly refers to Genesis 1:1. I disagree completely. I would argue that the "day" in Genesis 2:4 refers to the entire creation time period, rather than day 1. Why? Do you really think the concluding statement, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4) refers to Day 1? The context of this passage is in wrapping up the creation account (because the previous verses talk about day 7, and the next verses discuss what God does next). It is logical and natural to interpret this statement as being a final summary statement of the creation account, not a reference specifically back to day 1 of the creation story. I don't know of a single Hebrew scholar who would look at this text and conclude that Genesis 2:4 refers back to creation day 1, rather than the whole of creation.

If you take what I just said and fit it into the Fourth Commandment in Exodus 20, it makes perfect sense! God in the Ten Commandments wasn't talking about six figurative periods of time. Prior to that, God had persistently kept calling the seventh day as the Sabbath, the exact same name He called the seventh day of creation (nothing was created, but a day was made to be set aside. that's why it's still called "creation").
I have already dealt with this objection in a previous post in this thread. I can't find it right now, maybe someone else can dig it up for me, but I won't post it here, because I've already spent too much time on this post, and it's long enough as it is.

Besides, the evolutionists are blatantly attempting to be ignorant about the dating methods they use. They simply say that there's no reason to question the uniformitarian principle. Why? Because they know that if it's proven wrong, the whole evolutionary web melts into oblivion! To be even more irritating, they refuse to accept any actual proofs against the uniformitarian principle. They simply say "oh, it must be wrong.", when they don't even redo the experiments documented! That's what they're supposed to do if they've got issues with a scientific report. They're not supposed to just say "it's wrong" without actually proving it wrong.
You offer a lot of opinions here, without providing any evidence for your conclusions. How are they blatantly attempting to be ignorant? If you are accusing the scientific community of a cover up of this magnitude, then you are going to have to provide ample evidence of the specific experiments that were done incorrectly and where they went wrong. Do you want to go the paleontology, geology, and biology journals and do this? Maybe you can become a scientist yourself and impose some real standards on the field, since you think they are undergoing a mass conspiracy here.

Furthermore, the fact that you are using the word "proof" tells me you are very ignorant of the scientific method. Scientists don't use "proof" in their results, and a scientific theory is never "proven". Experimental data and scientific evidence collected doesn't "prove" a theory one way or another; it tends to confirm or contradict a given scientific theory. "Proofs" belong in the domain of mathematics and logic.

To all Christians who try to reconcile the idea of evolution and creation: what are you going to do when the part of the scientific community that is evolutionist finally accpets (that's likely to never happen) that the uniformitarian principle is wrong? There is literature that proves it wrong. Search, and you will find. I still recommend Robert Gentry's work. It's so far not been successfully refuted. And, for the Americans here, Congress actually took notice of his work on Helium Retention Rates that secretly disproves the idea that the earth is old.
If this is the literature that "proves" the "uniformitarian principle" to be "wrong", then I am quite pleased. I am moderately familiar with Robert Gentry's work, and I offer you a counter argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html) to this book, by Dr. Lorence Collins, a Ph.D. in Geology. (Sidenote: as it says in the website, Robert Gentry has a master's not a Ph.D. in physics).

Anyway, I haven't spent a sufficient amount of time studying both sides of this issue enough to provide a reasonable and intelligent summary of both Gentry's and Collins' arguments, but from reading up on it, I feel that Gentry is grossly over reacting, and relying on some key unproven accusations. Collins' work has at least done enough to show that Gentry hasn't "proven the uniformitarian principle wrong" or that the "[young earth]creation implications...now shine brighter than ever." (from his website (http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-fingerprints-of-creation.htm)).

As a sidenote, one of the reasons I don't spend so much time refuting radioactive decay conspiracy theorists, like Gentry, is because radioactive decay is by far the weakest evidence for an old earth. The strongest evidence for an old earth comes from physics-mainly astrophysics and cosmology. For example, if you accept General Relativity (which has been confirmed to be accurate to within about 9 places of the decimal-and makes sure your GPS system in your cell phone works properly) then there is really no other conclusion to draw.

[chuam8919]

How does the conclusion that "these scripture references are not valid for this argument" follow from the fact that some of these scipture references are from prophecies? Are the prophets on any less of a footing than other parts of scripture? That doesn't make any sense to me. Where the references are from has nothing to do with the FACT that in other places of scripture, a "day" (yom) refers to a longer period of time than a 24 hour time period. So why should we insist on one meaning of "yom" (24 hours) over the others, and reject creation models that require a longer time scale?You're misunderstanding me here:) . I do not think the prophets are less reliable than the other Scriptures. What I'm saying is that the prophecies use days differently, which is what you have said. However, it's not applicable to Genesis because Genesis is not a prophecy. If you look at the rest of the Bible, whenever the word day is used to mean different than a literal day, it's when it's a prophecy.


LOL - is it really necessary in an argument to start off by saying, "That's an inacurrate analysis"? Why don't you just argue why you're right instead of saying that?

I am making the inductive argument that after each day the phrase, "And there was evening, and there was morning, day x" follows. Since day 7 does not have this phrase following it, it must not have ended yet. Where in the text does it say that the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" should follow only those days in which a creation event takes place? My argument is not a deductive one; hence, I am arguing that given that the 6 days all had the evening and morning phrase following them, it is highly probable that if day 7 was meant to be 24 hours, then the evening morning phrase should have followed it as well. Thus, I maintain that it is strong evidence that the days are not necessarily 24 hour time periods.Not really. If you notice carefully, the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" was what transitioned the day into the next day of creation. The thing with the 7th day was because it was the last creation day, without another day of creation to follow it, so it would not need that phrase as a transition, because there wasn't another day of creation to transition into. it's like having 7 meatballs lined up, with one straw connecting two. Let's say the meatballs represent the 7 days of creation, and the straws the connecting phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning". You would need only 6 of those straws, because the 7th meatball isn't connected to an 8th meatball. (I know, it's a crude illustration :D )

Oops, I meant to say, "The Sun hadn't been created yet." (I changed that in my original post too). So my argument is that if the sun hadn't have been created yet, why would the definition of a day be 24 hours - from sunrise to sunrise? There is no reason it should be.Here is when the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Bible. According to the Big Bang Theory, light could not have come before the stars and sun. However, the Bible states that light and darkness was the first thing God created in the cosmos. And that was what defined the 24-hour period. How did we get light without the sun and stars? Simple. [Revelation 21:23] "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."


Oh, don't worry, I think I picked up on the fact that Genesis 2 was a summarization (not an expansion) of the creation story of Genesis 1.No, Genesis 2 is an expansion of the 6th day. Everything else was hardly spoken of, but the focus was the 6th day. It's like the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8. Daniel 8 focused on the 2nd and 3rd powers in Daniel 7.

You state this as though it necessarily follows from the text that the "day" in Genesis 2:4 directly refers to Genesis 1:1. I disagree completely. I would argue that the "day" in Genesis 2:4 refers to the entire creation time period, rather than day 1. Why? Do you really think the concluding statement, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4) refers to Day 1? The context of this passage is in wrapping up the creation account (because the previous verses talk about day 7, and the next verses discuss what God does next). It is logical and natural to interpret this statement as being a final summary statement of the creation account, not a reference specifically back to day 1 of the creation story. I don't know of a single Hebrew scholar who would look at this text and conclude that Genesis 2:4 refers back to creation day 1, rather than the whole of creation.No, no. You're forgetting what I had said earlier. Genesis 1:1 was not the first creation day. It is as you implied (whether intentionally or not). That it means the 7 day period of creation. In Genesis 1:1, it states that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, as a statement. Kind of like an reflection essay. Where in the introduction, you say "my day was good/bad", and then in the body you write how the day was good/bad. In Genesis 1:2, it proceeds to tell us what creation was done to make the heavens and the earth as introduced in Genesis 1:1.

You offer a lot of opinions here, without providing any evidence for your conclusions. How are they blatantly attempting to be ignorant? If you are accusing the scientific community of a cover up of this magnitude, then you are going to have to provide ample evidence of the specific experiments that were done incorrectly and where they went wrong. Do you want to go the paleontology, geology, and biology journals and do this? Maybe you can become a scientist yourself and impose some real standards on the field, since you think they are undergoing a mass conspiracy here.Since you have already heard of Robert Gentry, I'll talk about him. When Science published a letter criticizing his work, Robert Gentry sent his reply to it to the magazine. They refused to let him publish his reply. They claimed that there wasn't enough space, even when it was one of their policies to let scientists reply to criticisms of their work found in the magazine. And that ignorance of wanting to make sure the dating methods were full-proof aside, there's the issue of education in schools. In Biology classes, the teachers are not allowed to talk about any loopholes found in the evolutionary system, and to not let students question it! Now what's the need to do that for if evolution's so fool-proof as they keep suggesting?

Furthermore, the fact that you are using the word "proof" tells me you are very ignorant of the scientific method. Scientists don't use "proof" in their results, and a scientific theory is never "proven". Experimental data and scientific evidence collected doesn't "prove" a theory one way or another; it tends to confirm or contradict a given scientific theory. "Proofs" belong in the domain of mathematics and logic.I know. That's something my brother and biology teacher kept reminding me. It was to lightly mock the kind of attitude evolutionists portray, intentionally or not, with regards to the absoluteness of evolution. So far, that's the impression I've gotten. At least in the UK, a leading evolutionist actually said he couldn't believe how stupid the nation was becoming when he was interviewed to comment on the BBC poll revealing 50% of the UK population believing in creationism. He was actually calling people who believed in creation stupid! Now what kind of scientist is that? He's acting as if evolution has been proven even when in science you don't prove anything!

If this is the literature that "proves" the "uniformitarian principle" to be "wrong", then I am quite pleased. I am moderately familiar with Robert Gentry's work, and I offer you a counter argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html) to this book, by Dr. Lorence Collins, a Ph.D. in Geology. (Sidenote: as it says in the website, Robert Gentry has a master's not a Ph.D. in physics).
As a sidenote, one of the reasons I don't spend so much time refuting radioactive decay conspiracy theorists, like Gentry, is because radioactive decay is by far the weakest evidence for an old earth. The strongest evidence for an old earth comes from physics-mainly astrophysics and cosmology. For example, if you accept General Relativity (which has been confirmed to be accurate to within about 9 places of the decimal-and makes sure your GPS system in your cell phone works properly) then there is really no other conclusion to draw.You should also probably read what Gentry did with trying to find the best possible way to dispose of radioactive waste. He actually also sneakily put his theory to the test (man! This guy was sneaky! You should read what he did! :D ). That was what caught Congress's eye. What Gentry found would have been potentially useful for disposing radioactive waste if not for the fact that Oak Ridge Lab refused to renew his funding even when Congress sent a letter to them.

About physics-astro and cosmo being the strongest evidence, the radiation levels are also based on the assumption that in the cosmos, the radiation levels were always constant. That's the difficult part of astro and cosmophysics. The calculations are still based on variables that are assumed to be constant.

What needs to be done is for evolutionists to not say "there's no reason not to assume", but rather "how can we measure properly and accurately if these rates and levels were always constant?"

[.:~NikkitaTheJust~:.]

we just had a talk about this today in 2nd math

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

Awesome! I have been using this argument for years! lol

Freeman Dyson, one of today's most brilliant scientists, writes that nature's laws are marked by the "greatest mathematical simplicity and beauty."

While I am not a scientist or a mathematician, I am intrigued by this statement. If there is no Designer — no Creator God — how is it that our universe can be a law-abiding system marked by beauty and simplicity? I wonder, why isn't our universe in chaos?

The only reasonable explanation to me is the God of the Bible ...

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

I believe God created all that is. I seem to remember something about "7000 years is but a day to God." I don't doubt that a day to God could be quite a bit longer than that.

I think the whole idea of God creating the universe in seven days is less about how LONG it took him, and more about what order He made everything.

It tends to go along with the scientific version of how things came to be. Some of the wording might be a bit mystic or melodramtic, depending on your bible, but it still goes in this order : Light (big bang?), Land water and skies (as the stars and planets formed from cosmic dust), plants, water creatures, then land creatures (pretty much the same order as evolution) then finally God made man (We are relative newcomers according to evolution)

If we have the Laws of Physics, The Law of Gravity, and various other laws that govern the universe, well...WHO DO YOU THINK WROTE THOSE LAWS???? :)

I guess I fail to see the "logic" in believing there is no God. Scientifically, every effect SHOULD have a cause. Someone had to put everything into motion. There is too much order for the universe to be one big random event.

[NarniaFanatic]

I only believe in evolution to an extent. Of course I believe that God created everything you see today, but after he was finished creating, I believe that some species probably changed to fit their environment. I mean, humans didn't evolve at all and I don't know where Darwin came up with that idea, but I believe that some species changed a little, but not drastically.

[Saruman]

Yes, microevolution is a very real thing. We see plenty of different species of dogs and cats. But the point remains: they're all dogs and cats. :eek:

[Ephinie]

I only believe in evolution to an extent. Of course I believe that God created everything you see today, but after he was finished creating, I believe that some species probably changed to fit their environment. I mean, humans didn't evolve at all and I don't know where Darwin came up with that idea, but I believe that some species changed a little, but not drastically.

Humans DO adapt to their environments. Have you ever noticed how people who live in very high elevations can walk around easily while those of us who are visiting have trouble breathing? They aren't huge or very noticeable conditions, but humans do adapt to their environments. A lot of our adaptation strategies have more to do with how we respond to the environment rather than any physiological adaptation, but event that is adapting in a way. So while that is not evolving per se, it still follows the basic idea. But, of course, we are all still humans. We'll never be anything else but humans.

[inkspot]

So far I think Tim has the science behind him. Chuam, you reference a lot of stuff, but I don't think yet you have given us any hard evidence or science to prove the earth is young or was created in six literal 24-hour days. If you have science on your side, please bring it on, in a way we can understand.

And thanks everyone for keeping the discussion cordial. :)

[EveningStar]

I think we should all concur that God in his goodness and wisdom is responsible for our world and all that is in it, and respond appropriately in humility and thanksgiving.

I think we should acknowledge the forces of nature, whether or not those include natural selection, as God's wisdom made flesh.

I think we should earnestly seek salvation and to love one another, and leave the details to God's good care.

For believers to be divided over what is past and done is sad and pointless.

Discussion...that's great. I love discussion. I could discuss this all day. I hate it when it becomes evangelism. I hate it when a discussion of natural selection becomes a battle for the salvation of human souls.

How many people do you think would have tried to find the source of the Nile if a wrong answer could plunge you into everburning perdition?

How many people would have tried to measure the distance between the earth and the moon if a wrong answer would cut us off from communion with God?

We all think God made the world, don't we? If so, what is everyone worried about? I believe my sweater was made in Korea because it says so. I never thought knowing if it was hand made or knitted on a machine would affect its usefulness or my right to wear it.

Enjoy God's world. Inquire about it. Don't tremble in your boots. Curiosity is God's gift to you. Unwrap it with excitement and play with it.

[inkspot]

Enjoy God's world. Inquire about it. Don't tremble in your boots. Curiosity is God's gift to you. Unwrap it with excitement and play with it.
Right on, Chakal! I totally agree with your post. I think it's cool, as Tim presents his case, he shows us how the science seems to tally with the order of creation from the Scriptures -- I think it's great to see God revealed in science and nature, consistently with what the Bible teaches. To me, this is the point: to discover how the search for truth in science and the search for truth in the Scriptures ultimately arrive at the same place; Truth, Christ, God!

And you know, a Christian can believe in evolution and still be saved -- CS Lewis did. It's not a deal-breaker. The only deal-breaker for Christianity is how you regard and relate to Christ.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I wholly believe in Creation, not only becuase it makes sense, but because who could create things in this world that are so beautiful? None of this happened by chance, or by a "big bang." One of the most important evidence against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils. If I remember correctly from my Christian science book, it said that there have been no transitional forms found. Also, the Ice Age. My science book said that it did happen, only not everywhere in the world. It only happened in like high altitude places, like mountain ranges and stuff. There's a very interesting video by Louie Giglio called, "Indescribable." It's awesome! Go to Louie Giglio's site and see if you can order it there. It definitely defends Creationism. Some of the images he shows are mindblowing.

[inkspot]

None of this happened by chance, or by a "big bang."
I think the idea is: maybe the Big Bang was the moment God began creation, and it went through the stages described in Genesis, in that order, but maybe it took longer than some "young earth" scientists believe. I don't think any Christians here believe it all happened by chance.

[EveningStar]

God's soverignity is not in question here. People say God would not take thousands or millions of years to do what he could do in seven days. I'm sure the same is true for the coming of Christ Jesus and yet centuries of Jews lived and died crushed under the Roman heel without glimpsing the salvation of Israel and the greater world. Why did God wait so long? Not because he couldn't do it quickly but because he DIDN'T. We are left to wonder and second guess, but the fact is God does what he does, and our logical arguements do not bind his hands.

[Charn_Tim]

chuam, I'm a little busy with school and all, but I'm hoping to respond to your post#309, point by point a little later when I have some more time to put my thoughts together. Most of the issues you've raised, I've already addressed in previous posts, so it will be somewhat of a restatement of my earlier posts in this thread. Thanks for engaging in this discussion, this topic hasn't been touched on for a while now and it's a subject I'm very interested in. Before I rush off to my next class though, I just wanted to respond to a couple of things here.

wunderkind, you make a very good point, in my opinion. The first is that in my view, you're absolutely correct, the equations describing nature are wonderfully simple and elegant and even the most skeptical atheist must wonder how physical reality must correspond to the equations of mathematics with such harmony. This fact alone is truly amazing, and bespeaks a creator who wrote those laws into place.

Chakal, I also think you're post#317 is right on. I totally agree with it, especially this:


I think we should all concur that God in his goodness and wisdom is responsible for our world and all that is in it, and respond appropriately in humility and thanksgiving.

Aravis of Archenland, I invite you to read my post #304 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=31&pp=10) where I give a summary of my argument of how scripture does not say that the universe was created in 144 consecutive hours around 10 000 years or so ago. In fact, it seems to me that the time frame was left sufficiently ambiguous, because it was simply not an important point to the author of Genesis, or readers of the Bible up until the last 400 years or so ago. I would also encourage you to separate the issues of 1) the old age of the universe, and 2) the idea that: "evolution by natural selection is responsible for the creation and variation of all species on planet earth with no outside influence of a creator." These are two different things. In my opinion, the evidence for the old age of the universe is overwhelming and the scientific community is unanimous on this point, whereas the evidence for point #2 is far from compelling, and nearly any curious, rational enquirer who's examined the geological, paleontological, and biological evidence will tell you that (including professional scientists, even atheistic or agnostic scientists). I'm personally of the opinion (and if you'd like me to justify this position a little more, I'd be happy to do so) that the time ordering of events that geologists and paleontologists have come up with in studying the fossil record and other evidence is roughly correct, and furthermore, as I've said before, their ordering of events perfectly matches the ordering of creation events in Genesis 1.

[unleavened]

I too am short on time. I'm very sorry about that, but let me just add my 2 cents.
Firstly, CT I'd like to say that I respect and love you as a brother in Christ. All this is a discussion we have had pieces of before. Here it goes again. I cannot say you are absolutely wrong. You could be right in part or in whole.

I am a young earth advocate. I believe God created the earth with some appearance of age. I also believe that some of the 'age' evolutionists see in the earth comed fromt the flood. I must also say that carbon dating is only accurate to about 6000 years (supposedly about the time of the flood, I believe). I also must say that none of this was an issue before the THEORY of evolution (which I believe to be very far fetched and not based in science). Now I think that part of scripture is being to deeply read into. God said 6 days and one day of rest. The pattern of the Hebrew words suggests he meant DAYS not ages or anything of the sort. I think to say God used evolution streches the passage, just as much as evolution streches sicience.

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

Again, I disagree with this statement, because, as I said before, religion can be backed up by evidnence, and science can be flawed. (however, certain things such as the ressurection of Christ, cannot be proven, because they are by definition, miracles

Ok now this statement is flawed, no offense. Science is bases on Fact, Theories, and observations, depending on what you are talking about. Some scientific facts are 2 + 2 =4, H2O always equals water, The stars are actually suns. Planets do orbit their suns. Fire is hot, etc.

I also have an issue with saying religion can be proven while science is flawed, because if religion is so fool proof, then which religion is RIGHT? We all have our beliefs, and we all believe the way we do because something (Call it your evidence) something leads us to believe as we do. Religion always comes down to faith, which is what God asks of us in the first place.

This argument about creationism vs. big bang/evotution is really a moot point. Neither side can prove beyond any doubt that they are right, nor can they prove the other side wrong.

In the end, it really doesn't matter HOW you think God created the universe, as long as you believe in HIM.

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

I would also like to note: Charn_tim. I like your reasoning about the seventh day. If the sun has not set on the seventh day yet, then how long has it been since the sunrise, and how long was each of the other "days"?

Maybe on the 8th "Day" God will just scrap the whole idea of creation and start over. :)

[chuam8919]

In my opinion, the evidence for the old age of the universe is overwhelming ......I'm personally of the opinion (and if you'd like me to justify this position a little more, I'd be happy to do so) that the time ordering of events that geologists and paleontologists have come up with in studying the fossil record and other evidence is roughly correct, and furthermore, as I've said before, their ordering of events perfectly matches the ordering of creation events in Genesis 1.Then please show some of that evidence, Charn_Tim. Obviously we are not going to agree that on what time period God was talking about anytime soon, so this has to be settled on the evidence.

Please show how the fossil record is even roughly accurate.

In my opinion, the earth most certainly could not be more than a few thousand years old. At the rate the moon is currently starting to drift away from the earth (and assuming its velocity has always been constant), the dinosaurs would then have been "mooned" to death! The moon would be literally kissing the earth. No life could have been sustained with that kind of situation.

At the rate the earth's electro-magnetic field is decaying (and assuming the rate to have been constant), if the earth was truly indeed more than a few thousand years old, no life would have been sustained! you would be cooked!

[Charn_Tim]

You're misunderstanding me here:) . I do not think the prophets are less reliable than the other Scriptures. What I'm saying is that the prophecies use days differently, which is what you have said. However, it's not applicable to Genesis because Genesis is not a prophecy. If you look at the rest of the Bible, whenever the word day is used to mean different than a literal day, it's when it's a prophecy.
I'm not following your logic here, chuam. Somehow, you expect us to believe that the prophets were allowed to use "yom" to have one of the other meanings besides 24 hours, but the other books can't? Who made up that arbitrary rule?

The point remains that "yom" has other meanings besides 24 hours, and we have no reason to dogmatically maintain that the author of Genesis was intending to communicate that the universe was created in 6 24 hour time periods. It seems to me that he didn't intend to communicate a length of time at all, and the use of "yom" supports that assertion.

Not really. If you notice carefully, the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning" was what transitioned the day into the next day of creation. The thing with the 7th day was because it was the last creation day, without another day of creation to follow it, so it would not need that phrase as a transition, because there wasn't another day of creation to transition into. it's like having 7 meatballs lined up, with one straw connecting two. Let's say the meatballs represent the 7 days of creation, and the straws the connecting phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning". You would need only 6 of those straws, because the 7th meatball isn't connected to an 8th meatball. (I know, it's a crude illustration :D )
That's not a bad illustration, I just don't see how it supports your conclusion. Once again, you seem to be using an arbitrary set of rules that are not warranted from a reading of the text. Why should we assume that the author used the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, day x" only on those days that transitioned into the next one rather than to show that the day had a beginning and ending. There is simply no textual support for that assertion.

Here is when the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Bible. According to the Big Bang Theory, light could not have come before the stars and sun. However, the Bible states that light and darkness was the first thing God created in the cosmos. And that was what defined the 24-hour period. How did we get light without the sun and stars? Simple. [Revelation 21:23] "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."
No, the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Bible on this point. You make several statments that I find erroneous here. First of all, the Bible does not say that the first thing that God created was the light and darkness. The first thing that God creates is "the heavens and the Earth" as stated in the first verse of the Bible. This occurs before any of the creation days. So if God creates the heavens and the earth before any creation days, then your assertion that light could not have come before the stars and the sun is incorrect. "God created the heavens and the earth" means the stars were in place already, as was the sun, and that happened in the first verse of the Bible.

Secondly, the thing that many readers don't pick up on (and I didn't either until reading it many times over), is that the frame of reference for all the creation days is that of an observer on the surface of the earth, see verse 2: "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." From this point forward, the events that transpire are told from the perpective of an observer on earth, and quite amazingly the order of these events are in perfect agreement with planetary science and the fossil record, which in my opinion, gives Christians some of the best apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Finally, your use of the Revelation quote is entirely out of context. The context of that quote is in describing the New Jerusalem, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion.

No, Genesis 2 is an expansion of the 6th day. Everything else was hardly spoken of, but the focus was the 6th day. It's like the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8. Daniel 8 focused on the 2nd and 3rd powers in Daniel 7.
I belileve you are missing my point. Let me recap: I am making the case that in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is referring to all 6 creation days, not a 24 hour time period, which gives credence to my argument that the days in Genesis 1 aren't necessarily 24 hour time periods, they are an ambiguous amount of time. Whether Genesis 2 as a whole is an expansion of day 6 or not is irrelevant to this point.

No, no. You're forgetting what I had said earlier. Genesis 1:1 was not the first creation day. It is as you implied (whether intentionally or not). That it means the 7 day period of creation. In Genesis 1:1, it states that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, as a statement. Kind of like an reflection essay. Where in the introduction, you say "my day was good/bad", and then in the body you write how the day was good/bad. In Genesis 1:2, it proceeds to tell us what creation was done to make the heavens and the earth as introduced in Genesis 1:1.
I think this is the way you have to interpret Genesis 1:1 if you have the preconception that yom = 24 hours, and I've already shown that there's no reason to do this. If you take the approach (the more reasonable one in my opinion) that the universe wasn't necessarily created in a 144 hour time period, then the text reads more naturally, with Genesis 1:1 as the first creation event, then the following events in the creation days describing what's going on from the perspective of an observer on the earth, which as I said above, matches exactly with modern science.

Since you have already heard of Robert Gentry, I'll talk about him. When Science published a letter criticizing his work, Robert Gentry sent his reply to it to the magazine. They refused to let him publish his reply. They claimed that there wasn't enough space, even when it was one of their policies to let scientists reply to criticisms of their work found in the magazine. And that ignorance of wanting to make sure the dating methods were full-proof aside, there's the issue of education in schools. In Biology classes, the teachers are not allowed to talk about any loopholes found in the evolutionary system, and to not let students question it! Now what's the need to do that for if evolution's so fool-proof as they keep suggesting?
First of all, there probably wasn't enough space, and second of all, it doesn't matter, because if he really wanted his reply known, he could post it on his website and all. It's not like Science is the only magazine scientists read. And I highly doubt that it's one of their policies to let scientists reply to criticisms of their work, and they broke the "rule" just for him.

As to the rest of this quote, your sweeping generalization that "Biology teachers are not allowed to talk about any loopholes in the evolutionary system" is simply wrong. I don't know where you go to school, but at my school every biology or geology class that I've taken have shown us what works and the evidence for natural selection, and where the assertions of natural selection that lack experimental support are. The biggest error in the teaching of evolution that I've found is that they often portray all scientists as believing that natural selection is the mechanism which is responsible for all life and species on earth, which just isn't true. That is what some scientists believe and are trying to show, but there are in fact many scientists that do not believe this or are agnostic regarding natural selection as the mechanism responsible for life and all species.

About physics-astro and cosmo being the strongest evidence, the radiation levels are also based on the assumption that in the cosmos, the radiation levels were always constant. That's the difficult part of astro and cosmophysics. The calculations are still based on variables that are assumed to be constant.
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about things like the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, observed star formation, measuring the ages of globular clusters, pulsars, the horizon of the observable universe, to name a few.

If you maintain that the universe was created in a 144 hour creation week around 10 000 years ago, then you must believe that God is deliberately deceiving us scientists by placing abundant and overwhelming astrophysical and cosmological evidence for a universe that is around 14 billion years old, which is of course, clearly against his nature to do so.

[she-elfwarrior19]

Evolution is the thing about how scientists say how we cam from like monkeys right?
I dont believe one snit about that, God created the earth and Adam and Eve were the first humans, we werent and arent from monkeys. But thats my opinions

[unleavened]

If you maintain that the universe was created in a 144 hour creation week around 10 000 years ago, then you must believe that God is deliberately deceiving us scientists by placing abundant and overwhelming astrophysical and cosmological evidence for a universe that is around 14 billion years old, which is of course, clearly against his nature to do so.
Woah! I, as a young earth advocate, can say that I certainly don't believe God is decieving us. However, I would need to know spacifically what evidence of the earth's age you are talking about before I can respond to this comment.

As I have said before I don't think evolution is based in science. What I have seen of the theory is completely unconvincing, and I've seen alot.

So, I guess I will say this. I suppose God could have used many years to make the earth. However, since I don't believe evolution to be plausable, I have no reason to believe God used so many years. This theory came about to 'jive' with the evolutionists (That is my understanding anyway). But since evolution is an unprecidented theory (practically a religion in and of itself) there is no need in my mind for anything but a litteral translation.

Charn_Tim, I believe I've explained the pattern of "yom" inconjuction with a number pattern to you before. Do you remember? Maybe it wasn't you.

[EveningStar]

Charn Tim is talking about uniformatarianism, the idea that the physical processes leading to the decay of radioactive particles and the deposition of sediments to form rock has been happening at the same...or similar...rate throughout history.

Therefore if you pass a dripping faucet and it fills a glass in five hours, you can measure the deep water already standing in the sink and by measuring the volume in glassfuls see how long it would have taken.

That presupposes, of course, that someone did not turn the water on full blast, then throttle it back right before you came.

There you have it.

[chuam8919]

I'm not following your logic here, chuam. Somehow, you expect us to believe that the prophets were allowed to use "yom" to have one of the other meanings besides 24 hours, but the other books can't? Who made up that arbitrary rule?You want the true answer? God did. He laid out that principal. [Ezekiel 4:6] "And when you have fulfilled them, lie again on your right side, and you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days; a day for a year; a day for a year, I have set for you."

Here God Himself said that one day represents a year. However, this was a prophecy that God is talking about. Then you might ask: "But that's just one prophecy that it applies to. How can it apply to other prophecies?" In Daniel 9, there's a 490 day prophecy. It says 70 weeks. There are 7 days in a week. That's how we get 490 days. It then says that from the time a decree is passed to go back to Jerusalem and restore it until the time Messiah (Jesus) arrives, there will be 69 weeks. That's 483 days. It does not tell us to use the day-for-a-year priciple, and yet when you apply it to history, it fits! From 457BC (when Persian King Artaxerxes issued the decree found in Ezra chapter 7) until 27AD (when Jesus was baptized to begin His ministry).

It applies to prophecy, but you don't find texts that say it's everywhere else. Neither does it explicitly state that you only apply it to prophecies, though the paatern is there. Basically, it's a moot point.

The point remains that "yom" has other meanings besides 24 hours, and we have no reason to dogmatically maintain that the author of Genesis was intending to communicate that the universe was created in 6 24 hour time periods. It seems to me that he didn't intend to communicate a length of time at all, and the use of "yom" supports that assertion.It just occured to me that that sounds very limiting to God. Vut as I said, it's still a moot point.

That's not a bad illustration, I just don't see how it supports your conclusion. Once again, you seem to be using an arbitrary set of rules that are not warranted from a reading of the text. Why should we assume that the author used the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning, day x" only on those days that transitioned into the next one rather than to show that the day had a beginning and ending. There is simply no textual support for that assertion.Neither is there textual support for yours. It's also a moot point.

The first thing that God creates is "the heavens and the Earth" as stated in the first verse of the Bible. This occurs before any of the creation days. So if God creates the heavens and the earth before any creation days, then your assertion that light could not have come before the stars and the sun is incorrect. "God created the heavens and the earth" means the stars were in place already, as was the sun, and that happened in the first verse of the Bible. :) What you've just said is following my point. The Bible said the statement that "God made the heavens and the earth". It says that the heavens were there in the first verse. Yet that is impossible if you consider that the stars and the sun, that define the heavens, were not created until the 4th day. What I've been trying to say is that Genesis 1:1 is the summary of what happened in creation, and the rest of Genesis 1 tells us the details of creation.

From this point forward, the events that transpire are told from the perpective of an observer on earth, and quite amazingly the order of these events are in perfect agreement with planetary science and the fossil record, which in my opinion, gives Christians some of the best apologetic arguments for the divine inspiration of the Bible.On the perfect contrary. The fossil record does not tell us the order in which they were created. They are all there!

Please define what "evidence" planetary science has given. Be more specific.

Finally, your use of the Revelation quote is entirely out of context. The context of that quote is in describing the New Jerusalem, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present discussion.Read carefully. The new heaven and the new earth are created, with the New Jerusalem there with God sitting on his throne, to be their light. It still proves my point. God is light. He is our Sun in the new earth. It's not out of context. I'm using this to show that the fact that God is light explains why light came to be before the sun. God let His light illuminate.

I belileve you are missing my point. Let me recap: I am making the case that in Genesis 2:4 the word "day" is referring to all 6 creation days, not a 24 hour time period, which gives credence to my argument that the days in Genesis 1 aren't necessarily 24 hour time periods, they are an ambiguous amount of time. Whether Genesis 2 as a whole is an expansion of day 6 or not is irrelevant to this point.It's also a moot point. You say that mine is based on a strict interpretation presumption. Yours is too! Both of us cannot prove our points with accuracy of 99.99999999999%!

then the following events in the creation days describing what's going on from the perspective of an observer on the earth, which as I said above, matches exactly with modern science.It depends on what you define as modern science. If it's the process the earth was made, it's different from the Bible. With the "science", it states "dry land before sea", while the Bible says "sea before dry land"

First of all, there probably wasn't enough space, and second of all, it doesn't matter, because if he really wanted his reply known, he could post it on his website and all. It's not like Science is the only magazine scientists read. And I highly doubt that it's one of their policies to let scientists reply to criticisms of their work, and they broke the "rule" just for him.He did. Just go online and read his book. It's free for reading.

I don't know where you go to school, but at my school every biology or geology class that I've taken have shown us what works and the evidence for natural selection, and where the assertions of natural selection that lack experimental support are. The biggest error in the teaching of evolution that I've found is that they often portray all scientists as believing that natural selection is the mechanism which is responsible for all life and species on earth, which just isn't true. That is what some scientists believe and are trying to show, but there are in fact many scientists that do not believe this or are agnostic regarding natural selection as the mechanism responsible for life and all species.It's what the evolutionists want. I did not say that all teachers cannot talk about creationism. The fact remains that in some places, the bio teacher's fired once he/she talks about creationism. Teachers, however are all discouraged in public schools to teach about creationism and evolution's holes. The only difference is that some states, cities, and schools take it much further than that.

I'm talking about things like the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, observed star formation, measuring the ages of globular clusters, pulsars, the horizon of the observable universe, to name a few.Actually, CMB goes against the Big Bang. I'll talk about that later. Star formation.....guess what? :D It's not been observed!! All that they see is a dot in space getting brighter! It could be anything! That doesn't come close to proving the Big Bang. Globular clusters...AiG(though you may not agree) gets more scientific than I can. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/universe.asp

If you maintain that the universe was created in a 144 hour creation week around 10 000 years ago, then you must believe that God is deliberately deceiving us scientists by placing abundant and overwhelming astrophysical and cosmological evidence for a universe that is around 14 billion years old, which is of course, clearly against his nature to do so.If the Big Bang is so right, then why did God purposely use the Conservation of Angular Momentum against it? According to the Big Bang, the universe was made out of nothingness, and that the dust clouds then swirled faster and faster, until BANG! The galaxies flew in different directions. With the conservation of angular momentum, the galaxies and planets should all be spinning in one specific direction. But look at the planets! Some are turning in the opposite direction! Even multiple galaxies are spinning in the other direction!

[Saruman]

Some other "hot links" I wish to add to this debate. It may take a long while for me to gather my thoughts on this issue - so much has already been discussed! Needless to say, I take what the Holy Spirit has had written in Genesis 1-2 to be a literal 144 hours period of time in creation. We are not in the seventh day any longer. A new week began; the days have continued since that time, and so have the seasons, and years, etc. God has a divine purpose in how He orders things, and at any rate it would seem seven is one of His choice numbers! :D

I have not gone into deep study in this field, but I admire some others who have contributed largely to the debate and have stood firm despite mainstream opinion. Dr. Kent Hovind, the late Dr. Henry Morris, and of course Ken Ham (AiG) are a few whom I admire for their thorough study and their input into this very sensitive topic.

Articles from Kent Hovind's website on a young earth: (as of this moment his website is not accessible for some technical reason, but this is the link to his website (http://drdino.com/). You can search for "young earth" and find some insightful articles on this topic.)

Articles from ICR can be found here (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=submitsearch&f_context_any=any&f_search_type=all&f_keyword_any=young+earth).

I hope to be able to join in and share some thoughts on this issue. For me, the greatest issue that arises is just how we look at the Word of God. As per the example of Genesis 1-2: if the word "day" in the context doesn't mean what it means to say (and it becomes quite confusing, therefore, when it is backed up with words such as "evening and the morning, the X day"), then how am I going to look at the rest of the Word of God? If God was being ambiguous in Genesis 1-2, then I can't be certain that I'll know exactly what He's talking about in the rest of His Word. If I can look at the word "day" in the context of the Scripture, which is supported by other text in the Scripture that implicates it is a regular earth-day as we know it ("from sunrise to sunrise"), but then proceed to take the Word of God and place it under the light of what conclusions scientists have drawn based upon their methods and their calculations, and therefore arrive to the conclusion that God must not have actually been talking about a single earth day, but was actually inferring that it really took Him a long time, then I must proceed to regard the rest of His Word in a similar fashion.

Some may contend that, "well, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day to God!" This particular Scripture makes no mention to Genesis in the least. It informs us of how God views time, since time is part of His creation. He is above and beyond it.

I speak with the highest respect for scientists of this day and age. The largest point of this debate has been the contention regarding radiometric dating processes. How do these processes truly function? I wish to know how scientists arrive to the conclusions they do.

I join with the late Dr. Morris in the belief of the universal flood being the catalyst of the massive geological patterns we see today. It is interesting that in some mountains in the East (I cannot recall which in particular) there are fossils of shellfish and clams at the very peaks of these mountains. I assume, however, that they fossilized over billions of years?

I cannot arrive to the conclusions of modern scientists, no matter how overwhelming their consensus may be, because I believe they go against the Word of God, and with that said, I believe the conclusions they draw are based upon faulty systems and processes. The Word of God should not be brought under the light of theory and conjecture (a large contributor to the field of scientifical study - how ambiguous that field truly is!), but we ought to regard science in the light of the Word. I think when we are put to it, we might found ourselves in the same predicament as Job, who was questioned by God (cf. Job 38-41).

Tim, I speak with the highest respect for you. :) You are my brother in Christ, and I very much value your thoughts and your tenacious contribution to this debate. Nevertheless, I just cannot arrive to the conclusion that God's Word remains ambiguous in some areas and yet becomes fully tenable in others. It's just non-sequitur.

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

I have to point out that suns are not the only source of light in the universe. The big bang itself would have produced a massive amount of light on it's own. Furthermore, nebulas also emit light in various colors, so there could indeed be light before stars.

Secondly concerning the earth's decaying magnetic field. Someone has been reading too much of Thomas Barne's theories from the 70's, and not enough of the works regarding how he came to those conclusions, along with the flaws in his theories. Which is not to say other theories do not have flaws or huge assumptions...I am merely restating the point I made earlier...No-one can prove they are right without a doubt.

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

The evolutionist have never been able to produce that "missing link" for there evolution theory, so there is a point in favor of creationism.

I still think the truth lies somewhere between the two absolutes.

[Charn_Tim]

I think everyone has a lot of good thoughts on this issue, and I want to respond to everyone's posts, but I have to sleep sometime :) However, I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep tonight before commenting on the "science" that chuam uses to support his young-earth/universe ideas. Please excuse my tone if it is a little bit harsh, I do not intend it to be, but I tend to get slightly annoyed when someone says so many inaccurate things about science:

chuam, in my opinion as a scientist, you say many blatantly incorrect things regarding science-and physics specifically-and I'm going to deal point by point with your post a little later, if I see fit, but I feel I need to say a couple of things right now. Virtually everything you said about the CMB, the Big Bang, and conservation of angular momentum in your last two paragraphs of your post#331 is incorrect from a scientific perspective. (And you need not have a degree in physics to see this. Even reading over the first couple of chapters in The Elegant Universe or A Brief History of Time or a similar popular science book will show the gross errors of your statements). I find your comments about star formation and the Big Bang particularly erroneous. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Big Bang says the following:


that the dust clouds then swirled faster and faster, until BANG! The galaxies flew in different directions.

but you certainly didn't get it from any practicing cosmologist or physicist. I mean, I guess you're free to make up your own rules about conservation of angular momentum, star formation, and the Big Bang, but you're not going to get any support from scientific data or any credible scientist.



Firstly, CT I'd like to say that I respect and love you as a brother in Christ. All this is a discussion we have had pieces of before. Here it goes again. I cannot say you are absolutely wrong. You could be right in part or in whole.
unleavened, I also would like to express my sentiment that you are a sister in Christ and this does not have anything to do with either of our salvation. Having said that, wrestling with this issue has significant importance in my opinion, as this perceived conflict between science and the Bible has led to many scientists and rational enquirers rejection of the Bible on scientific grounds.

I am a young earth advocate. I believe God created the earth with some appearance of age. I also believe that some of the 'age' evolutionists see in the earth comed fromt the flood. I must also say that carbon dating is only accurate to about 6000 years (supposedly about the time of the flood, I believe). I also must say that none of this was an issue before the THEORY of evolution (which I believe to be very far fetched and not based in science). Now I think that part of scripture is being to deeply read into. God said 6 days and one day of rest. The pattern of the Hebrew words suggests he meant DAYS not ages or anything of the sort. I think to say God used evolution streches the passage, just as much as evolution streches sicience.
Now, what I have been trying to communicate in several of my posts in this thread is that the best evidence of a billions of years old universe comes not from the earth, but from the universe. For example, why do we see stars that are billions of light years away? Why do we see the Cosmic Microwave Backgroud Radiation at a temperature of roughly 2.7 K which perfectly matches the predictions of cosmologists. For more information and scientific evidence of an old earth, see my posts #285 and 286 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=29&pp=10) of this thread. Post #286 was my sad attempt at trying to present some idea of the astrophysical evidence of a billions of years old earth, but I think I only succeeded in explaining that it is roughly impossible to understand it step by step unless you know some advanced mathematics, and at least some special relativity. And actually, if I had a chalkboard and several hours, I think I could do a pretty good job of providing the background necessary to understand this evidence, but I'm afraid these tools aren't very handy in a forum setting :) Hopefully, post #286 gives you some idea of the evidence from astrophysics anyway.

Some other points that you raise in this post:
1) Throughout this thread, I have been trying to correct the misconception that the only method that scientists use to date fossils is carbon dating. Carbon dating has a half life of about 4000 years, so it is a valid dating technique up to about 50 000 years or so. The decay process that scientists use to measure ages of things as old as the earth, asteroids in the solar system, or rocks on the moon for example, is the uranium/lead decay process which has a half life on the order of a billion years.
2) In my opinion (and I don't feel like digging around in my geology and biology textbooks to show you why I believe this right now) the flood is entirely inadequate to account for the fossil record and the geology that we see today. And once again, the best evidence for a billions of years old universe is not from the fossil record or radioactive elements on the earth anyway (again, see posts 285 and 286).
3) I have already given my arguments of how the text does not teach a 144 hour creation week, and a pretty coherent summary of that argument is given in post 304 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=31&pp=10).

[Charn_Tim]

Woah! I, as a young earth advocate, can say that I certainly don't believe God is decieving us. However, I would need to know spacifically what evidence of the earth's age you are talking about before I can respond to this comment.
Well, Chakal offered a partial response to this one, but I also kind of answered this in my above post. (essentially, I think post#286 answers this as well).

As I have said before I don't think evolution is based in science. What I have seen of the theory is completely unconvincing, and I've seen alot.
I encourage you to make the distinction between the Big Bang and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Do you mean you've seen a lot of the theory of evolution by natural selection and the claim by some scientists that natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the creation of life and all species? Because current evidence and experiments do not support this conclusion, so I don't believe it either. However, if you're referring to the Big Bang, I do find it convincing, and again (I sound like a broken record, I know ;) ), I refer you to post 285 or 286.

So, I guess I will say this. I suppose God could have used many years to make the earth. However, since I don't believe evolution to be plausable, I have no reason to believe God used so many years. This theory came about to 'jive' with the evolutionists (That is my understanding anyway). But since evolution is an unprecidented theory (practically a religion in and of itself) there is no need in my mind for anything but a litteral translation.
Oh, this is an interesting idea...Do you think that the Big Bang model of the universe was created to accomodate evolution? Because if that's what you're saying, I would respectfully completely disagree. If I may, I'd like to take a detour into the history of science to show you what I mean:

From about the middle of the nineteenth century (about the time Darwin published his work On the Origin of the Species) until around 1920 or so (when Einstein finished formulating the General Theory of Relativity, and it was experimentally confirmed by the bending of starlight with the eclipse of 1919) atheistic scientists who wanted nothing to do with the idea of a creator of any kind, had the idea that the universe was infinite and static which would free them of any arguments against evolution that appeal to the enormous probability against anything "evolving" from a lower life form (Notice that an infinite and static universe is completely opposite to the Big Bang of course). When some of the implications of the Einstein's field equations were worked out and applied to the overall dynamics of the universe, it was shown that the universe was expanding (space itself was expanding in all directions), which implies that the universe had a beginning (and a Beginner!!). Actually, many scientists, including Einstein himself tried desperately to get around this, and it wasn't until Einstein himself actually looked through Edwin Hubble's telescope back in the 1920's to directly observe the expansion of all deep sky objects (direct evidence for an expanding, big bang universe), that he and other scientists bought into some sort of an idea of a big bang, and a beginning to the universe, and the big bang model of the universe has been experimentally confirmed over and over again since the 1920's.

[Charn_Tim]

Secondly concerning the earth's decaying magnetic field. Someone has been reading too much of Thomas Barne's theories from the 70's, and not enough of the works regarding how he came to those conclusions, along with the flaws in his theories. Which is not to say other theories do not have flaws or huge assumptions...I am merely restating the point I made earlier...No-one can prove they are right without a doubt.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, wunderkind, and a website that breaks down his argument is here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html) if anyone's interested. I'm too lazy to summarize the article in my own words right now, because it's getting pretty late and I've already spent too much time here tonight, but I can certainly do that if anyone wants me to. Basically, this argument (like the moon dust argument if anyone remembers) is way out of date and has been conclusively shown to be inaccurate. Somehow, these out of date arguments just won't be put to rest in some young-earth creationist circles, unfortunately.

[Saruman]

Forgive me, but I wish to include one more article (http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/492/), from a series of articles, written by Chuck Missler, whose thoughts I also deeply value and believe may contribute to the discussion at hand. :)

[chuam8919]

chuam, in my opinion as a scientist, you say many blatantly incorrect things regarding science-and physics specifically-and I'm going to deal point by point with your post a little later, if I see fit, but I feel I need to say a couple of things right now. Virtually everything you said about the CMB, the Big Bang, and conservation of angular momentum in your last two paragraphs of your post#331 is incorrect from a scientific perspective.I may be wrong about the Big Bang and the conservation of angular momentum (I'm not admitting that I'm wrong. It's just that i'm not a scientist expert kind of guy, so I wouldn't be able to do it as you have) but with regards to the CMB, it actually poses a problem. You said that it produces a precisely uniform temperaturem, which is obviously true. Even the temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere, in all directions. However, in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the beginnings. Those different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact, with more distant regions coming to equilibrium by exchanging radiation. From there, the radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

However, the problem is this: even by assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions with the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? That's the problem the theory faces. It has an issue with light-travel time. With the big bang, it is assumed that the universe is many billions of years old. Though that "billions of years" is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other.

What do you propose we do, then? Extend it to a gazillion? I'm kidding. :D (But seriously, what proposed idea has been given for this?)

For example, why do we see stars that are billions of light years away?Since you've been so scientific, I'll just try to explain this as best I can an answer in layman's terms.

We know that time(t) = distance(x)/speed(c)

There is little doubt about how far the different parts of the cosmos are to each other. And assuming that the speed of light has been constant (and that's also debatable. It might not have been constant. Can't strong gravity affect it?), then we are left time to have an issue with. Time itself almost certainly would not have been constant. Various things can influence time, as described in Einstein’s relativity theories. With his relativity theories, as far as we can tell, only two things can influence time. One is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

In fact, clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity. And with black holes that actually manage to pull in light, overcoming its high speed, light seems to stand still at the event horizon. If even light can be sucked into an area of immense weight across large distances, how can we be sure that the speed of light (which causes time to slow or speed up based on different perspectives) has been able to remain constant from the time it leaves from the galaxies we observe to the time it reaches us?

It's still a moot point, because we cannot disprove something that is not there, or beyond our scope of current technology.

[chuam8919]

1) Throughout this thread, I have been trying to correct the misconception that the only method that scientists use to date fossils is carbon dating. Carbon dating has a half life of about 4000 years, so it is a valid dating technique up to about 50 000 years or so. The decay process that scientists use to measure ages of things as old as the earth, asteroids in the solar system, or rocks on the moon for example, is the uranium/lead decay process which has a half life on the order of a billion years.Then you may take to heart that both my best friend and I had already fully agreed Carbon-14 dating to be pretty inaccurate for evidence of an old earth, way prior to me reading this.

2) In my opinion (and I don't feel like digging around in my geology and biology textbooks to show you why I believe this right now) the flood is entirely inadequate to account for the fossil record and the geology that we see today. And once again, the best evidence for a billions of years old universe is not from the fossil record or radioactive elements on the earth anyway (again, see posts 285 and 286).Please define the fossil record.

I read those two posts, and I'm particularly concerned about you using the carbonate deposits example. Those sediments are piled on top of each other, and when you look in-between the layers, there's no visible sign of erosion that should be there if each layer took an extraordinarily long time to get that thick. Please explain the difference, Charn_Tim.

[Someonebeatmetowunderkind]

hey, it's been great, but i am officially done with this thread. None of us will change our minds here, so there is no point in going on. It HAS been interesting though :)

feel free to continue without me, of course :D

[Lawrence]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

If I may nudge this thread along a somewhat different path (although arguing the scientific merits of Carbon-14 and Radio Mass Spectography may seem fascinating to some)...

Why is it so terribly important that the account of creation in Genesis is literally true? I ask this sincerely and with respect of those who argue (like Chaum) that each and every detail of the creation account in Gen 1 or Gen 2 is scientific fact?

As early as the time of Our Lord, Jews such as Philo interpreted Gen1 and Gen2 allegorically, seeing (I believe rightly) that the creation of the cosmos must have taken a bit longer than six days and hence we must be talking of some other interpretation. Philo and his fellows were devout Jews who saw no fault in an allegorical reading (vice scientific or literal) of Genesis two millenia ago, yet a good number of you are willing to place all your chips on a literal reading. Why? I do not wish folks to bombard me with scriptural quotes but would like to know your personal reasons for holding this belief as, dare I say it, fundamental to your faith.

I bid you all the Lord's Peace,
L

[Aravis Kenobi]

I read in my Science book that we can accept evolution or creation by faith. Like I've said before, a lot of the evolutionist's views crumble because of the fact that evolution can't be proved. The Christians believe creation happened because of our faith. Evolution just doesn't make sense. Creation does. The Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal humans, who were at first thought to be ape because of their physical appearances, were really humans who may have had certain birth defects that caused their faces to resemble that of an ape. To be honest, if evolution happened, how come there are monkeys and apes and animals like that? If evolution happened, wouldn't we still be evolving, even today? Wouldn't all the monkeys be human? Why aren't they as smart as we are? Why don't they wear clothes and shoes? Why don't they talk? Why don't they stand upright as we do? Does a watch become a watch just by chance? No. I now rest my case. If you can answer my questions, then bravo. If you can't, that just proves how evolution is false.

[unleavened]

Oh, this is an interesting idea...Do you think that the Big Bang model of the universe was created to accomodate evolution? Because if that's what you're saying, I would respectfully completely disagree.
No, that's not, what I meant. Sorry, my wording was faulty. I meant the idea of theistic evolution in general.

And I will also insert here that we have not really come to terms on the subject and that is my fault. Again, I apologize. I will go read more carefully over your posts before I post anymore. I've been getting things from this thread and some classes I've taken and such mixed up. Can't remember who said what when. So, adios until I collect myself.

I suppose the important thing is that you recognize God has the power to create the world in 6 days if he wanted to, and that he is very involved in his creation. He didn't just wind it up and let it evolve. However, I believe you, Charn_Tim, do hold to these truths. So, perhaps the subject is not worth arguing with you.

[chuam8919]

Why is it so terribly important that the account of creation in Genesis is literally true?For the simple reason that that is the reason why a guy's kid became an atheist. After he taught his kid that Genesis couldn't be taken literally, he still had the ginormous gall to ask why his kid became an atheist when all the time in generations, his family had always been so hard-glued to Christianity.

You may not understand it now, but it's because of this compromise that led many Christians to say that since we cannot trust God to speak plainly in Genesis 1, the rest of the Bible is useless because it also isn't true. You may say: "No, that's not possible, they're just lying". But then again, it's the same with soldiers who came back from wars. They suffered from shell shock and many find it ridiculous that just people shooting at each other and explosives going off anywhere could cause such psychological damage.

[Saruman]

Why is it so terribly important that the account of creation in Genesis is literally true?

You raise a very good question, Lawrence. In the end I am forced to respond by saying that everything we read in the Word of God should be seen as such:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Tim. 3:16-17)

God's Word is divinely inspired by His Holy Spirit, and it is something He places above His very name (i.e., it is extremely important and how we take it is extremely relevant - Ps. 138:2). In giving us His Word, I do not believe God has meant to leave our minds in a fog of confusion and mystery. If, in the creation account in Genesis 1-2, we are informed that He, by His divine purpose, created the world in six days ("from sunrise to sunrise," a regular earth-day as established by God), we must conclude that He has established it thus with some particular purpose and function in mind. If the conclusions drawn by scientists based upon hypotheses and conjecture contradict God's Word, then we know they must be missing the mark somewhere in their reasoning and methodologies. Speaking for myself, it would be a compromise to place the Word of God underneath the opinions and assumptions of modern scientists.

I think it's great that such early philosophers interpreted Genesis 1-2 to mean something allegorical. The text and language used, however, implicates the complete opposite. In my own opinion, this belief of an old age universe is about as obsolete as the early folk who used to believe the moon in the night sky was an opening into the third heaven.

I know you asked not to be "bombarded" by Scripture, but it is highly necessary and extremely important to this discussion. After all, it is the impetus that brings me into this discussion:

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. (Exodus 20:11)

So the same author of Genesis, Moses, in writing down what God said, means to tell us that Genesis 1-2 is ambiguous and allegorical? We clearly see in this context that God established the creation of this universe and of our earth, and of time, with a very holy purpose in mind.

If we take Genesis 1-2 to mean something allegorical, and to be ambiguous, then we must place the rest of the Word of God in the same light. We must then question everything and what exactly was meant. God's Word is given to us to explain and to instruct us, to teach us about our God so that we may come to know Him in a personal way, come to a relationship with Him, not to keep us wrapped up in mystagogy.

This is why I believe taking the Word of God literally (except in places where we understand certain things are spoken figuratively, such as "this is My body and My blood," "I am the Bread of Life," "I am the Light of the world," etc.) is of critical importance. Are we willing to trust in the Word of God, or are we going to throw it aside and dismiss it as old wives' fables?

In conclusion, how we regard God's Word is essential to our faith. We know that there are Christians who are saved by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of their thoughts on a young earth versus an old. But just what value and importance we place in the Word of God is, again, of critical relevance. I don't think God could have stressed that enough in His Word for us.

God bless you.

[Ks Girl]

I believe that God created us. I do NOT believe in evolution!

[SOS~]

No I don not belive in that.What theses people of science are finding are old monkey bones for a long time ago.

[inkspot]

I think all of us have agreed: evolution by natural selection is a theory which does not hold up. It is bad science. What Charn Tim is asking us to consider is that good science seems to indicate the universe is much older than "young earth" scientists want us to believe the Bible says. It's Tim's idea those scientists are so married to a literal reading of Genesis, they are deliberately closing their eyes to the scientific record.

The reason I think it's important we not make the earth's age a sticking point is: we run the risk of becoming anti-intellectual, which iw the last thing God wants. He created out intelligence and want us to use it. When we find truth in science and nature, our job isn't to say: "there is no truth here" and close our eyes to it because the Bible seems to contradict it. Our job is to say: "Since Scripture is truth, and science and nature also point to truth, how can these be reconciled?"

To do otherwise is dishonest and an insult to the Creator of our intelligence.

I don't think Moses was giving us a science lesson in Genesis. There are clearly poetic and allegorical passages in the Bible, and to demand we accept every word as a literal, scientific fact is silly. Otherwise we must assume from the Psalms that God has a beak and wings!

Let's not purposefully be dummies. Let's accept good science and determine how Scripture and science arrive at the same point: Truth.

[Saruman]

I think all of us have agreed: evolution by natural selection is a theory which does not hold up. It is bad science. What Charn Tim is asking us to consider is that good science seems to indicate the universe is much older than "young earth" scientists want us to believe the Bible says. It's Tim's idea those scientists are so married to a literal reading of Genesis, they are deliberately closing their eyes to the scientific record.

Just a few comments if I may, inkspot.

If you would have carefully considered my points on the matter of regarding the context of Genesis literally, I made mention with some examples of how the Scriptures obviously speak in a figurative sense on certain occasions (not least to mention that Jesus Himself spoke figuratively on several important occasions). Yet if you read through Genesis carefully, the text demonstrates with support that it is a literal seven standard earth-day period (cf. Exodus 20:11). In the end, there is nothing silly about a literal translation of the text in Genesis 1-2. I don't believe God was speaking figuratively on this occasion, certainly not in the way in which He created this universe and this earth. I believe your words regarding a literal translation of the Scriptures were applied very unfairly.

I believe your words concerning science and intellectualism were, on the whole, rather harsh. Naturally we are going to find plenty of truth in science and nature that very much will support the Word of God. What comes into question in this matter is that which scientists purport (through whatever methods they utilize) to have discovered based upon said methods and hypotheses concerning science (as they regard it).

I agree that science should go hand-in-hand with the Word of God, seeing as the heavens declare the glory of God, and the earth shows forth His handiwork. But we mustn't limit ourselves to what the general consensus among the "intellectual community" turns out to be. I don't think many have considered that they might actually be incorrect in their assumptions and/or conclusions (which is why I laud the efforts of such scientists as the late Dr. Henry Morris, for example, who have sought to weigh these issues very carefully, going against the tide of mainstream consensus).

I agree with you, inkspot: let's not be dummies! :) I don't believe God would have us seek to interpret His Word with a liberal mentality by regarding certain points as being clear and precise, and others as being unclear and mysterious, nor go to the extreme of saying ALL must be taken literally when there are obvious passages that speak figuratively (less the first two chapters of Genesis). In areas where we know and understand that the author is not speaking in a figurative sense (i.e. I am the Light of the world, this is My body and blood, I am the Bread of Life, etc.), I think we have the Holy Spirit to bear witness of what He meant to say in His Word; He has not given His Word to leave us in dark confusion.

[Gryphon]

Inkspot, they can also "scientifically" disprove that Jesus died and rose again. They can also "scientifically" prove that Jesus never lived. They can "scientifically" prove that the Americans never went to the moon. They can "scientifically" prove that The Gospel of Judas is correct. They can "scientifically" prove that Evolution is more than a theory. They can "scientifically" prove that humans are chance. They can "scientifically" prove that God's creation is nothing but some glorious thing that made itself.

We can also say that if we dont take The Word literally we can also twist what God is telling us and make it say whatever we want. When God said seven days, thats what He meant. When He said there was day and night He meant it that way. When God said He died for ALL mankind, He meant it that way. When He said stop arguing about silly things (like this) HE MEANT IT!

2 Timothy 2:14
"14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."

This debate is stupid. Why do we need to know this crap anyway? Arent we WASTING our time in front of our computers having these discussions? Arent we supposed to be out there making deciples instead with the good news?

[Lawrence]

Friends,

Ok. Let me see if I understand you all. It is God's word and everything we read in the word of God "should be read as such". Fair enough. Chaum believes that failure to do so leads to Atheism.

My problem with the above two somewhat correlated positions: If you read all of scripture literally then we should all be keeping Kosher, owning slaves, stoning women caught in adultery, and killing our sons and daughters who disobey us. But wait, you will retort, the New Covenant of the Christian scriptures did away with such anachronistic laws, i.e. Jesus gives us a pass on such "Jewishness". If you make that move, however, you are placing some of God's words (i.e. the Scripture you like) over other of God's words (i.e. the bits of Scripture we have chosen not to follow). And why draw the line in the sand with Genesis? Why not Leviticus or Numbers, plenty of good stuff in those books as well. I never hear any of my fundamentalist or evangelical brothers and sisters hanging their hat on the prohibition on eating rock badger. I would be fine with your position if one of you, just one, would be honest and say, "Hey, you know we kind of dig these bits and want to take them literally because we happen to like the support they give to other moral positions we hold."

As for a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 which sees no problems, I am at odds at how one could reconcile the disparate accounts of creation in which different things happened on different days in Gen 1 vs. Gen 2. Was Man and Women created (Gen 1.27) together or was women created from Man (Gen 2,21-22)? Was man made on day 6 (Gen 1.26-31) or nearer the beginning of the cycle of creation, before shrub and grass (Gen 2.5-7)? Now Chaum, if I were to teach my son and daughter that all is to be taken literally, there may come a time when they read Genesis critically and ask their dad what gives? Now, I could harmonize the two accounts and say they both tell the same story, but that would be a bit of a fib now wouldn't it. We all know the Hebrew tips us off that God is called one name in Gen 1 and another in Gen 2 and that the stories are indeed very different. (I won't get into the whole source critical mess of Yahwist, Priestly, Elohist and Deutoronomist, a screaming bore once you get past the first few chapters of Gen.)

I believe teaching solely a literal interpretation will eventually create more, not less Atheists, because once you read God's word critically you notice that it don't all go together (David or Elkanah killed Goliath? What are the names of the twelve apostles? Did Our Lord cleanse the temple at the end of his ministry (Mt-Mk-Lk) or the beginning (Jn)? ). However, once you notice that you are open to the belief that the Bible is the word of God in the words of men, collected over the span of a millenia or so. Of course, then it gets much more complicated, we cannot simply turn to the good book for each and every answer we desire because we acknowledge that what we are dealing with is a collection of various genres, put together over a very long period of time, by folks with various views on God and His Son.

They are our sacred scriptures. They are a record of God's people seeking to follow his ways throughout time. The Old Testament points to Christ, the New Testament fulfills what was prophesied in the Old. The tomb is empty, He is God's Son, He is God. I stand with you all on Golgotha peering into the empty tomb and rejoice. I believe as well that when we all look past the tomb to the future we all equally await God's glory and the return of His Son. However, when I look back, at the story which lead up to the victory of the cross, I see a different picture indeed.

We will not hammer this out in a thread as this particular thread has been going on for a good 500 years or so. I applaud your convictions, your belief in the word. We simply disagree.

Christ's Peace be with you all,
L

[Ephinie]

Let's not purposefully be dummies. Let's accept good science and determine how Scripture and science arrive at the same point: Truth.

inkspot makes a good point here. All truth is God's truth, regardless of where it is found.

Science is a source of truth just as the Bible is. I think that Christians, in general, are too hard on scientists who lean more toward evolution or older earth theories. This is because six day, young earth Creationists tend to see theorizing in other directions as a threat to their beliefs and worldview. What we all need to remember is that most scientists who sit around all day coming up with these theories are engaged in a search for truth every bit as much as we are.

It is possible that there are a few scientists out there who may have some secret vendetta against the Bible which colors all of their opinions and agendas. But, by and large, MOST scientists who come up with this stuff are not like that. They are forming theories and conclusions based upon what they believe is a logical assimilation of the evidence they have seen. That, at the very least, deserves some respect... even if they come to conclusions with which we do not agree.

And going back to the point that all truth is God's truth, no matter where it is found... What that means is that good science will be reconciled with scripture eventually. We do not have all the answers now, but that is why we have to continue to search and work things out. To close oneself off to ideas that do not automatically line up with our pre-determined interpretation of scripture is bad. It shows a lack of interest in truth on our parts. We shouldn't immediately jump on something and tear it apart because it challenges our beliefs... even if it comes from someone who is not a Christian. We should look at it from all angles and say, "Hmm... now here's a theory put forth by someone who is more educated in this field than I am. Maybe there is something to it." And then we should investigate it further.

Keep in mind that those who believe in evolution realize there are several flaws with the theory, and none of them claim it is perfect or without holes. But they believe it because it is the best available explanation to their minds. They believe it is more plausible than a literal six-day account, because that theory also has several holes in it from a scientific perspective.

So yeah... we don't have all the answers. The point of the Genesis account was not to tell us, in detail, the geological history of the earth. The point was to tell us that we were created in the image of God by divine inspiration.

[Narnia Man 2006]

I believe that God created the universe quickly and I also believe in Creationism since there is lots of evidence that Evolution didn't happen (in 1977, this dinosaur was found by a Japanese fishing vessel; Japan had all kinds of stories out about this discovery, but our American media ignored it because it damaged the Theory of Evolution). Also, schools are only teaching Evolution and not even 1% of Creationism. A bit sad that Evolutionists are worshipping a goddess called Reason and they don't know it. Hey, the French mod worshipped her and now Evolutionists today.

I heard this Phoenician myth about a goddess creating the world by time and mud. If it weren't for her, we wouldn't exist; sounds like something Evolutionists would say. I think Evolution is a tool of Satan just to get people's attention off Christ.

And how can all this just happen? I reccomend two books called "It couldn't just Happen" and "Genesis: Finding our Roots". They are excellent books and they will help you rethink the story of Genesis.

[inkspot]

Inkspot, they can also "scientifically" disprove that Jesus died and rose again. They can also "scientifically" prove that Jesus never lived. They can "scientifically" prove that the Americans never went to the moon. They can "scientifically" prove that The Gospel of Judas is correct. They can "scientifically" prove that Evolution is more than a theory. They can "scientifically" prove that humans are chance. They can "scientifically" prove that God's creation is nothing but some glorious thing that made itself.

I understand you are saying these things can be "scientifically proven" sarcastically, Gryphon, that you don't really believe they have been proven. Some scientists may believe these things and try to prove them, but if they seriously claimed to have done so, the rest of the scientific world would have laughed at them. I am at a loss as to what you are saying here: because bad scientists claim to have proven frivolous stuff, we should beware good science? Surely this is not what you mean? Otherwise you could say because Mormons claim the Scriptures say Jesus is just one of many gods, the Scriptures are invalid. Just because cranks say a thing is "scientific" doesn't mean there's no such thing as science.

We can also say that if we dont take The Word literally we can also twist what God is telling us and make it say whatever we want. When God said seven days, thats what He meant. When He said there was day and night He meant it that way.
So you discount the Scripture that says a day is as a thousand years to the Lord? And do you believe Ezekiel is speakking of a literal 24-hour day when he says, "For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen" (Ezekiel 30:3)? Because he seems to think that particular day will be longer than 24 hours -- the "time" of the heathen.

It's clear sometimes in the Bible the word we read as "day" was meant to incorporate a much longer time (as Tim has shown with the yom debate). If we insist on a literal 24-hour day everywhere we read the word "day" in Scripture, although the Bible wasn't written in English and clearly the Hebrew and Greek words so translated could mean a much longer time, then we are hobbling our intellects, just as I mentioned. We are clinging to something we know is wrong (at least, if we would accept the truth, we would know it) because we fear to do otherwise would threaten our faith.

But dear friends, the Truth cannot threaten our faith! We need never draw back in fear from Truth! And we should especially be bold when we realize, study of the Scriptures (such as Tim's discourse on "yom," and the ordering of creation events) brings us to the same conclusions as science. Then we see how good and sweet it is when we reason together instead of blocking our minds to science because we fear it somehow threatens truth.

We have agreed: evolution by natural selection is a theory fraught with bad science, and if it is taught as fact, it is a terrible lie and deception. Acknowledging this is smart.

But let's not stop being smart there and cling to this seven literal days idea if good science tells us it is unlikely, and the Scriptures offer us a way to see the creation story in harmony with the science.

In the end, what matters to us as believers is that God did create the heavens and the earth, and that Jesus did come to save mankind. If we want to extend this good news to the needy world, we will have an easier time of doing so if we show them they don't have to check their brains at the door to believe it.

This is the only reason I think there is value in discussing this -- not to hack off anyone who believes in a literal seven-day creation -- but to show you: when such a belief comes into conflict with science, there is no harm in admitting the possibility that Moses wasn't writing out a science lesson in Genesis, and it's possible God took His time in creating the universe. To stubbornly insist the faith hangs upon the time-frame of creation is anti-intellectual and contributes to the reputation of Christians as close-minded and, well, not altogether using their intelligence. No one wants to join such a group ...

[Saruman]

I suppose a critical view and discussion on science may actually aid us in regarding geology and other factors that come into play as to how "modern" scientists weigh in opinions, formulae, and hypotheses. Yet your words, inkspot, regarding someone being "smart" are applied unfairly to this discussion.

If you would have carefully considered my words from a not-too-recent post regarding the verse that tells us a "day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day" to the Lord, you might reconsider even applying it to this debate. This Scripture does not speak to us of Genesis. Rather, it informs us that God is above and beyond the realm of time, much unlike us. A day can be regarded as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day to Him. He sees the end from the beginning. In no wise does this refute what we learn in Genesis 1-2 and in Exodus 20:11.

You are building a strawman argument out of this, inkspot. Your example out of Ezekiel does not reflect a critical analysis of Genesis 1-2. Just as the Hebrew word "yom" has several meanings, so our own word "day" has several meanings, and can be applied in a similar fashion. It can be used to mean a literal 24-hour period of time, just as in Genesis 1-2, or it can be used to regard a time that has not yet come to pass, as it is in Ezekiel 30. In what way can you use Ezekiel 30 to compare to the use of the word in Genesis 1-2, or even in Exodus 20:11 for that matter? Consider the Word carefully. Overall I agree: let's be reasonable.

Again, your words considering "hobbling our intellects" are out of place and I must repudiate such nonsense here and now. I am deeply hurt that you refer to anyone who chooses to regard the text (backed with support) in Genesis as being a literal six-day creation (cf. Exodus 20:11) as being guilty of "hobbling" their intellect, particularly if it doesn't fall in line with what you regard as being "good science." You have not come to support how one's position on a literal six-day creation is "wrong" by displaying any factual evidence - even others who have discussed these issues have largely opined as based upon conclusions drawn by scientists, based upon their methods of research (which is not to say they are suddenly correct). If I may recommend, consider some of the excellent research that has been done on this subject by such persons as the late Dr. Morris. I provided some website links earlier to give some food for thought.

If you insist upon reducing this discussion to baseless accusations of how others have disregarded "intelligence," then I recommend you lock this thread and we be done with this debate. You do not aid it by calling others dumb because they do not fall in line with what another, or even what you yourself, have opined regarding "good science." Again, I recommend taking a look at those other websites. They also deal with a critical analysis of modern geology and a study of cosmic events and effects that weigh heavily on the side of a young earth.

I don't think any of us, as Christians, would seek to share the Gospel of Christ with others based upon an argument over Genesis 1-2, inkspot. This seems like an obvious no-brainer. And no one yet has begun to suggest that our faith hangs on the balance of Genesis 1-2. Rather, the argument has been how we regard and view the Word of God as being critical. But to call someone unintelligent, or even to suggest it remotely, is exactly what you have done, and yet again are doing, simply because we do not agree with the mainstream opinion over what "good science" is supposed to be. That's just over the line.

[inkspot]

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, Curumo!

I did not mean, of course not, that you were being purposefully obtuse! No, no, no, please forgive me. That isn't what I meant. No one here is trying to be stupid because they are afraid if they're smart they'll have to give up their faith, I said it all wrong.

I fear if we will not listen to science as presented by smart people like Charn Tim and insist that it can't be compatible with Scripture, we will develop a reputation as dummies. I did not mean anyone here is particularly dumb or acting dumb so as not to confront their faith/truth issues.

And Curumo, sorry, sorry, sorry again that I missed your last post before this one -- it was an answer to my previous, and fell at the end of a page, and somehow I didn't see it -- I only saw Gryphon's answer. I did not see yours and did not respond appropriately, sorry.

It seemed to me someone in this thread had said the reason to insist on literal creation was that if you cannot believe Genesis, then you cannot believe the Bible, and he knew someone who had become an atheist on this basis. Of course I don't think anyone sharing the Gospel starts with an insistence upon literal six-day creation, but I do think Christians who insist on it may alienate people who have the general idea we are dummies, which of course we aren't, whether we believe in literal six-day creation or not.

To my mind, Charn Tim has presented credible evidence for believing in a universe much older than than the several thousands of years which "young earth" scientists espouse. To my mind, if the evidence is credible, then it's pointless to insist it cannot be so, or to make six literal days a sticking point.

But I will withdraw anything I said which indicated I thought you had to be dumb to believe in the literal six days; I always believed in it before this Thread, and I am no dummy.

I just think it's not the smartest to reject science on the basis that it conflicts with Scripture, as they both must end up at the same place.

So, sorry! Does this clear things up? Please forgive me, Curumo. :)

[thewinterqueen0135]

Jesus' death on the cross made the first covenant obsolete. The First covenant was meant to draw people to the salvation of the cross. Everything about the first covenant was fulfilled by Jesus. The first covenant brought only death and suffering. The second covenant through Christ brough life.


2 Corinthians 3:6 (New International Version)

6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


Hebrews 8:13

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

[Charn_Tim]

Forgive me for taking this thread backwards a bit with this post, but I feel that there is something that has perhaps been overlooked.

First of all, Curumo, I have greatly appreciated all your input here, and I think your insights are valuable in this discussion, and I know that inkspot feels the same way. As I was thinking over your part of this discussion last night (particularly post 332, 338, 346, and 350, I noticed that perhaps we are not on the same page as to what it is that we are disagreeing with each other on.

Your argument seems to be the following:

1) God's word is the highest authority we have, being divinely inspired by His Holy Spirit.
2) God's word says that the universe was created in 144 consecutive hours some point in time around 10 000 years ago.
3) Modern science tells us that the universe was created billions of years ago
4) We should always trust what scripture plainly says over what fallible man discovers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.'. Modern science is wrong, and the earth is around 10 000 years old

I know this is simplified, and you have some justification for each point, but I think overall, this is what you're arguing. Please correct me if I've significantly erred in my characterization of your position.

Now, it seems that you may have falsely characterized my position. I think it may be fruitful here to describe the position that I am not advocating, in the following way:

1) God's word says that the universe was created in 144 consecutive hours some point in time around 10 000 years ago.
2) Modern science tells us that the universe was created billions of years ago
3) We must not be able to trust what God says in Genesis 1, so we must allegorize it and twist it to say something else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.'. Science is right (contradicting what it says in Genesis 1) and the universe is billions of years old.

Now, I just want to make clear that this is NOT what I am advocating. I'm not sure how carefully you've read my post#304 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=31&pp=10), but if you haven't read it too carefully, I would respectfully ask that you read it over and tell me where I've gone wrong in my reasoning. In that post (and my whole position in this thread) has been the following:

Genesis 1/2 does NOT say that the universe was created some 10 000 years ago in 144 consecutive hours
Now, looking back over your argument that I have characterized, I think the only significant difference there is in our two positions is in your point 2, that "God's word says that the universe was created in 144 consecutive hours some point in time around 10 000 years ago."

In this thread, (at least recently) I have not really been interested in defending the accuracy or the infallibilty of science (although we can start a new thread on that if necessary). I would have much to say about Dr. Henry Morris (who by the way is not a scientist, he was a hydraulic engineer, which immediately calls into question his authority to speak on matters of physics and biology anyway. It also might explain why virtually nothing he's ever argued has stuck around in academic circles. His philosophy of science and attempted rebuttals of modern science have been entirely rebutted by rational thinkers.). Anyway, I would ask that for now, we stick to discussing Genesis 1, and how we should interpret the text itself, rather than attacking/defending a particular brand of science or pseudo-science.

As a general note to all posters in this thread, I would also ask that unless absolutely necessary, we do not respond to arguments by referring the person you're arguing against to a link, saying something like, "He has some good thoughts on the matter." Or something to the effect of "see this link for my argument against your points." All this shows is that you don't really understand what you're arguing and you need the website to argue against the other person. There have been several times in this thread already where I have been referred to websites for rebuttals to my points, and it's unreasonable to expect me to argue aganist an entire website in this thread, although given enough time, I feel that I could do so.

To conclude this post, I think that young earth advocates (like Curumo, Gryphon, and any others) need to tell me where I've gone wrong in my interpretation of Genesis 1 (again see post 304 to start with) and explain how Genesis 1/2 says that the universe is roughly thousands of years old and the creation week was in fact 144 consecutive hours.

(I had a little more to say, but I have class now) :)

[inkspot]

Thanks, Tim, this is a good place to start again.
I have been trusting you to tell me the science of it, but since we don't all agree on the quality of the science, we can skip that for now and talk only about the biblical aspect.

I will be interested if some of our bright "young earthers" can show us where your thoughts on Genesis 1-2 go wrong, in their view.

And yes, I ditto Tim's statement that Curumo, Gryphon and others bring good ideas to the table and have my utmost respect, despite my not seeing eye to eye with them. Sorry if the implication was otherwise in my previous posts. :)

[Rohan Princess]

Ok, this has been much shortend from a previous post of mine. One idea i have is, for example, if you read Genesis 1 what idea comes to mind first that this is a long period of time? or that it was 6 -24 hour days?
When i say this many people get caught up in "everyone interprets It differently",(and i'm not trying to get into that) i know somethings are hard to understand but if we simply read and try to understand even on a basic level....i draw a conclusion that it was 6 days.
but since this is what i believe i cannot see very well the other person's point of view (though i do try).

[chuam8919]

If you read all of scripture literally then we should all be keeping Kosher, owning slaves, stoning women caught in adultery, and killing our sons and daughters who disobey us. But wait, you will retort, the New Covenant of the Christian scriptures did away with such anachronistic laws, i.e. Jesus gives us a pass on such "Jewishness".No, I'm not going to retort that way. First off, please track back the history of Kosher before you start on it. Kosher was a remembrance of something just as Passover was a rememberance of God's deliverance. Owning slaves is a different matter. Do you find anywhere in the Bible God sanctioning slavery? On the contrary! God was the one who told Moses to put up the system of the Sabbatical year to free slaves! All those rules and regulations God put on them about slaves, was God's guidelines of treating slaves, not because He condoned it. It's just like a mother not wanting her son to hang out with the wrong people. She doesn't want him to, but he still does it so she tells him guidelines to make sure he doesn't fall into that trap.

Stoning women caught in adultery and killing sons and daughters that disobey... you then forget what the Hebrews were in God's sight. Notice that God always dealt them harsh treatments when they persistently went astray from His intent of them being a holy nation. It may sound harsh, but tell me, what would you have done differently with people whose minds had been originally polluted with paganism in Egypt, and who are supposed to be holy and free from sin in the sight of all neighbouring nations?

As for a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 which sees no problems, I am at odds at how one could reconcile the disparate accounts of creation in which different things happened on different days in Gen 1 vs. Gen 2. Was Man and Women created (Gen 1.27) together or was women created from Man (Gen 2,21-22)? Was man made on day 6 (Gen 1.26-31) or nearer the beginning of the cycle of creation, before shrub and grass (Gen 2.5-7)?I keep finding myself repeat this. In Gensis 1:27, it talks about what humans were created. In Genesis 2, it talks about the specifics as to how God formed Adam, and Eve out of Adam's rib. Genesis 2 is focusing mainly on God's creation process of humans.

Now Chaum, if I were to teach my son and daughter that all is to be taken literally, there may come a time when they read Genesis critically and ask their dad what gives? Now, I could harmonize the two accounts and say they both tell the same story, but that would be a bit of a fib now wouldn't it. We all know the Hebrew tips us off that God is called one name in Gen 1 and another in Gen 2 and that the stories are indeed very different.The stories are not different. God has different names, sometimes different names in one chapter alone, even when they are chronologically continuous. In fact, take a look at [Exodus 3:15] "And (eloheem) said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The (jehovah) (eloheem) of your fathers,....." In the same verse alone, God calls Himself by different names. Yet, He is still speaking of the same thing.

[Charn_Tim]

Just a quick note:

MODS, if Gryphon's post does not get deleted (and perhaps a warning issued?), then I'm not sure if I've ever seen a post that deserves to be deleted. If you would kindly delete his/her post that would be great. Thanks.

[onlymystory]

Alright everyone. Let's remember that regardless of personal belief or opinion we should all behave like mature adults. If you find yourself upset by a post then simply refrain from responding. If this thread turns into a fight it will be shut down. And I would rather the threads of a religious nature not continually get shut down.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Charn Tim has a point here, though I'm loth to delete posts that haven't descended into blatant abuse or profanity. Gryphon, as I look back through the thread, I don't see anything anyone has said that justifies your response. You responded to Ink's question as if it was a challenge; looking at it in context, I can't see that. Actually, I do agree with your conclusion, though I wish you'd expressed it more courteously: it is a waste of time to separate ourselves from each other over issues that, ultimately, have little bearing on how we can live in charity and reflect God's love to the world around us. Perhaps God made the world in six days. Perhaps He took longer, and the account in Genesis relates the truth in poetic terms. Will we distance ourselves from each other over this question, to which we have not been given a clear answer? Will we believe the worst about our brothers and sisters because they think differently than we do?

If you look at other threads on this forum, you will see posts by young people struggling with depression, suicidal thoughts, and self-mutiliation. They need hope. Will they find it in Christ, if they browse over to these threads and see us at each other's throats?

We are being watched!


(thanks, OMS - I was constructing this as you posted.)

[Gryphon]

i dont think ive ever come across that rudly before. one year on this forum, and that's my first deleted post. im not going to say that i take back what i said. i will however apologise for not handling my anger in a way that it needed to be handled.

I dont even know if i have anything left to say about that.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I agree with PrinceOfTheWest. No matter how mad we get at each other's posts, what would happen if people who are struggling come over to these kind of threads, and they see us at each other's throats? What kind of witness would that be? I will admit, I have said some things on other posts that I should've stated in a better and calmer way. I've never had my posts deleted (or at least I don't think I have) but some of posts should've been deleted. But, that's all in the past. I try to use good judment when posting.

[Gryphon]

personally i think this thread should just be locked, it doesnt seem to be helping anyone.

[inkspot]

personally i think this thread should just be locked, it doesnt seem to be helping anyone.
I missed out on the offensive post, and I am assuming, as it was directed toward me, it's just as well I did?

I'll lock this Thread if everyone feels they cannot be nice to each other. I can't see Christians having to run from a discussion of Scripture and science because we can't be nice to one another, but if this is how we feel, then I will do it.

Thoughts anyone?

[Rohan Princess]

i think most people are willing to speak their minds on this issue, kindly and with respect. but that remains to be seen

[Neevil]

Hi, okay if I join in the discussion? I think as Christians, we need to act as such, and be loving towards others even when we don't feel like it. I'll make sure that my posts are curtious, and please don't lock this thread, because I think it's a good one.

btw, I know you guys were arguing about the actual legnth of Creation. Whether it was an actual 6 days or the six days represented a longer period of time. I have been told, that in the original Hebrew translation, the wording meant an actual six, 24 hour day, period, nothing longer.

[Charn_Tim]

i think most people are willing to speak their minds on this issue, kindly and with respect. but that remains to be seen

I couldn't agree more, Rohan Princess, and our dialogue in this thread awhile back is a testament to that. :) Even though we ended up agreeing to disagree, I think a mutual respect and understanding was reached, and I have felt that with many in this thread who I've engaged in discussion with-whether we end up agreeing or not. A couple of negative occurences in this thread is not grounds for closing it, in my opinion, as I feel that much good has been and will continue to be done.

If anyone is wondering where we go from here or what direction the thread was progressing before this little interruption, perhaps my post#359 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=36&pp=10)-where I outline what I think the key differences lie between my understanding of Genesis 1/2 and the young earth creationists' interpretation-can springboard the discussion.

[inkspot]

btw, I know you guys were arguing about the actual legnth of Creation. Whether it was an actual 6 days or the six days represented a longer period of time. I have been told, that in the original Hebrew translation, the wording meant an actual six, 24 hour day, period, nothing longer.
Welcome, Neevil! Do you remember who told you this, and what their reasoning was. Charn Tim has given us a little lesson on the word "yom" which is translated from the Hebrew as day and its various meanings -- you will find it further back in the Thread, although you may prefer just to go to Tim's post #359 and pick up from there.

There are many who agree with you that the Bible says 6 lliteral 24 hour days, and some who feel the point is open to interpretation. If you can give us your evidence for it being literal days, that would be a good starting point, too.

I think for now the Thread stays open. I apologized to Gryphon in a PM and to Curumo in the Thread for anything I may have said to offend them, but if Curumo doesn't turn up again, I shall PM him as well, and let him know we are carrying on here like civil people.

Pax, y'all! :)

[Charn_Tim]

I just wanted to add one thing to inkspot's post for any newcomers: a summary of my position and explanation of the uses of "yom" (the Hebrew word translated as "day" in your english Bible) is given in post#304 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=31&pp=10).

[Neevil]

Welcome, Neevil! Do you remember who told you this, and what their reasoning was. Charn Tim has given us a little lesson on the word "yom" which is translated from the Hebrew as day and its various meanings -- you will find it further back in the Thread, although you may prefer just to go to Tim's post #359 and pick up from there.

There are many who agree with you that the Bible says 6 lliteral 24 hour days, and some who feel the point is open to interpretation. If you can give us your evidence for it being literal days, that would be a good starting point, too.

My pastor said this. He is working on his doctorate degree in theology, and knows Hebrew, so I consider him a trustworthy source of information. As I cannot speak Hebrew, I am some what limited on this topic. I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but I think another interesting thing to point out is that God created everything instantly.

"Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." -Gen.1:3
"Then God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' Thus God made the firmament ... and it was so." -Gen. 1:6-7

And God continues to create the rest of creation in this manner. I think, since creation was created instantly, as can be supported from scripture, that it would be wise to conclude "day" meaning a 24-hour day. After all, if it was created instantly, why would God need to wait around for an extended amout of time before He created something else? It seems logical that He make one thing and then another back to back, without waiting. This, I think supports a 24-hour day.

[onlymystory]

Neevil, I would definitely urge you to go back and read some of the earlier posts because we've been debating this for a while. But if I'm remembering Tim's arguments correctly (and boy will I hear it if I mess them up :D ) the Bible never actually says it happened immediately. If you look closer at those verses it says "And God said let there be light, and there was light." Note that it doesn't say light happened immediately. Have you ever noticed that when you light a candle during a black out at first you don't see anything? The candle lights up the area its around but not much more. But as your eyes adjust and you begin to use the light from the candle to focus, you start seeing more of the room. And eventually that one candle can light up the whole room. It just takes time. I believe the idea can be used the same way with the long creation idea. First because science keeps proving that the earth and especially the universe is older. (And I agree that its silly for God to have put false signs up.) And those verses just don't say it happened immediately. God has all the time in the world. He could have taken however long he wants to in creating the world. And there are some earlier posts that talk about other places yom is mentioned where it doesn't refer to a 24 hour day. I would encourage you to look at them.

And I'm glad we're getting a discussion going again in here.

[Neevil]

True, the Bible does not say "and there immediatly was light", it simply says "and there was light". However, I think it implies an imediate result. I know y'all have been discussing this for a while, I read a lot of it, but 39 pages is quite a bit to read, so I did not go through it all. Anyway, I'm sure you have debated every possible thing on the "24-hour day" topic. I believe what I believe, and I will stick to my 24-hour day opinion because I think it is a very important fondation for the events that follow Creation. This is one of those things that can be debated forever and never come to an agreement, so I will lay it to rest.

And eventually that one candle can light up the whole room. It just takes time. I believe the idea can be used the same way with the long creation idea. First because science keeps proving that the earth and especially the universe is older.

I know this has been said before, but I will say it again. Science cannot prove anything. Science is based on assumptions of observations. This is not a 100% reliable source of information because, (1)how do we know our observations are correct? On a sunny day we may see a lake that looks blue. But on a cloudy day, the same lake may appear gray. Which perception is correct? Sometimes our senses decieve us and our observations turn out to be invalid. (2) Our own assumptions is not trustworthy information, either. Humans commonly make errors, so our assumptions cannot be considerded true. Science then, is based on two unreliable things, human observation and human assumption.

How does science keep proving that earth and the universe is older? I am aware of a good amount of evidence that shows the oppisite. Could you please explain your statement more? If this topic was already disscussed, then just tell me which posts and I'll go back and read it.

[Neevil]

(I forgot to add something, sorry)

As you all know, Evolution is the main scientific belief of today. I think it is interesting to note, that in the past, many major scientific beliefs which were thought at the time to be valid, were eventually disproven. Or, many new scientific ideas were regarded as silly, but later were supported by more evidence. For example, it was thought that the earth was the center planet, and the sun and all the other planets orbited around us. We now now that it is us who orbit the sun. Also, many many scientist's who made discoveries were thought of as crazy weirdo's. It wasn't until after their deaths that their work was reconized. I just thought this was something interesting to think about.

[Charn_Tim]

First of all, thanks onlymystory...I give you about a C+ :p :D...just kidding, I think that was a good analogy of the candle.

If you don't mind, Neevil, I would actually like to direct the discussion away from determining what exactly we can believe about what modern science tells us about the physical world, although I'd have much to say regarding that issue, and move it back towards interpreting the text of Genesis 1/2 itself. Partially because, unlike the science, it's something that we all can understand and would be on a relatively equal footing on, and partially because I personally don't think that science is a reason one should reject something in scripture if scripture plainly tells us something. Of course, as you know, my position is simply that Genesis 1/2 does not give us a specific time frame or age of the universe/earth; it is agnostic as to the time duration of the creation days and of the age of the universe/earth. I will address your comments about the suggested immediacy of the creation events later, but I wanted to make a couple more comments right now.

From your statments above, regarding our perceptions and observations, I would tend to agree with you (and so would any good scientist) that we should accept things with a high degree of skepticism and beware of where our uncertainties lie, but this does not mean that no knowledge can be gained from science regarding certain properties of the universe, such as its age. I have discussed some evidence that speaks to the old age of the universe, but quite frankly, as I discovered, it's not very easy to describe the overwhelmingly large body of evidence that we have that supports the big bang model and a billions of years old universe. I tried to explain some scientific evidence in my posts#285 and 286 (http://narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&page=29&pp=10). Looking those posts over may help you see a little better what exactly it is that leads scientists to conclude an old age for the universe.

I would also call into question your statement that there is a "good amount of evidence" showing a young age for the universe. I have already shown the error of several of these so-called scientific claims in this thread, and I am very skeptical of this large body of information you speak of that shows a young age of the universe. If you have some new info that I'm unaware of, please present it to us. Regarding this issue, I think an interesting thing to note is the following: John Morris, current president of the Insitute of Creation Research (ICR) was asked in a radio broadcast if he or any of his associates had ever heard of any scientist who became convinced on the basis of science alone that the earth or universe is only thousands of years old, and he responded with an unequivocal NO. (from the radio program Bible on the Line, aired on KLLA North Hollywood, Dec. 6, 1987).

I will try to respond to the rest of your posts a little later. Thanks for discussing this with me :)

[inkspot]

I will address your comments about the suggested immediacy of the creation events later, but I wanted to make a couple more comments right now.
Did you ever follow this up, Tim? Feel free to do so when you have time ... I find the discussion interresting. :)

[Charn_Tim]

Did you ever follow this up, Tim? Feel free to do so when you have time ... I find the discussion interresting. :)
Oh thanks for asking, inkspot. I'm not going to have much time to be online this weekend, and my online time has been taken up by something else a lot more recently, but I'll give a follow up to that as soon as I can.

[inkspot]

Oh thanks for asking, inkspot. I'm not going to have much time to be online this weekend, and my online time has been taken up by something else a lot more recently, but I'll give a follow up to that as soon as I can.
Great, thanks Tim. No worries, just whenever you have time. you're a student, right? So I imagine you are very busy right now!
:)

[chuam8919]

Charn_Tim, I first want to ask this question. Does the Bible say which is older? The heavens (cosmos) or the earth? From what Genesis 1 has said, the heavens as we know it now is younger than the earth. For the simple reason that the stars and sun were put there after God had already laid the foundations of ground on the earth.

So does it not stand that if the Bible defines the heavens to be younger than the earth, that if we want to determine the maximum age of the heavens since its creation, that the first thing that needs to be addressed is whether the earth is truly as old as scientists claim it to be?

Right now I'm not talking about evolution, but of the determined age of the heavens. Even if we assume that 'day' is not a literal day, the sequence of events is definite. It is specific. The Bible, through its testimony of the sequence of events, states that the heavens have to be younger than the earth. So it is illogical for a theistic evolutionist to use the cosmologists' data to say that the cosmos is old, therefore God's creation 'days' were not literal. in cosmology, it says that the cosmos is older than the earth, yet the Bible even says the opposite. It says that the earth is older than the cosmos.

[onlymystory]

Well, actually Genesis 1:1 says "God created the heavens and the earth." So if you go by just that heavens get mentioned first. And then God separates light from darkness and then the waters of the sky and the seas and its really not until the third day that God created the earth. And from what I've been reading of various theories (and I make no claims to being as smart as Charn_Tim but I'm at least trying to learn) The cosmos is much more than simply stars. If I'm reading it right, stars and all that come later just as the Bible says they do. So it would seem that by saying that the cosmos is older they are exactly right. He's not saying the stars are older necessarily but that the entire cosmos is older. Which I personally see as two different things. And that seems to further strengthen the argument for a less than literal 6 day creation theory as God creates space and then starts adding to it. I'm sure he can explain it better but to me the Bible puts the expanse of space as created first then earth.

[chuam8919]

Well, actually Genesis 1:1 says "God created the heavens and the earth." So if you go by just that heavens get mentioned first. And then God separates light from darkness and then the waters of the sky and the seas and its really not until the third day that God created the earth.Isn't that a contradiction, then? In Genesis 1:1, it says the heavens and the earth. You then said that later God created the earth. The thing is, I don't go by just that. The earth that is mentioned later on is not the whole earth. It is the ground, dry land. The waters mentioned before the dry land is the seas, which is correct. But what I have noticed is that the waters and the 'earth' (dry land) actually constitute the Earth. Yet how can that be when in Genesis 1:1, it says "God created the heavens and the earth"? My answer to this is simple. Genesis 1:1 is simply a summary of what God actually did. It's like an abstract in a scientific article. It's the abstract first, and then the actual details. "God created the heavens"--the stars and the sun--"and the earth"--the dry land, waters, living creatures, and vegetation.

And from what I've been reading of various theories (and I make no claims to being as smart as Charn_Tim but I'm at least trying to learn) The cosmos is much more than simply stars. If I'm reading it right, stars and all that come later just as the Bible says they do. So it would seem that by saying that the cosmos is older they are exactly right. He's not saying the stars are older necessarily but that the entire cosmos is older. Which I personally see as two different things. And that seems to further strengthen the argument for a less than literal 6 day creation theory as God creates space and then starts adding to it. I'm sure he can explain it better but to me the Bible puts the expanse of space as created first then earth.Yet, as Charn_Tim has pointed out, the light from distant stars is the strongest evidence that the cosmos is old. And the Cosmic Microwave Blackbody Radiation is not evidence of an old cosmos. And if they don't have those, the cosmologists basically don't have much other evidence to work on. The distant starlight is their strongest evidence for that. However, that's still based on light, which still does not indicate the age of the entire cosmos. Yet that is what they're basing it on.

But that is far from my point. What I'm saying is basically that if the stars are old, then the earth has to be older, based on the account of the Bible that the stars were created after the earth had its atmosphere laid out.

If we are to determine if what the cosmolgists say is true about the age of the stars, the earth has to be shown to be older. If it isn't, then all of their assumptions about the age of the earth and the age of the stars and sun are washed down a black hole.

By the way, if you want to base it on the kind of transition of Genesis 1:1 to verse two, there's actually no 'and' at the beginning of verse two. They had added it there wrongly. In the original Hebrew text, there's no 'and'. It's simply starts with 'the earth'. They had assumed that, when the sentence started with 'the earth', it was a continuation from where Genesis 1:1 left off.

[Charn_Tim]

onlymystory, you're exactly right-the Bible does say that God created the heavens (cosmos) first, and not the earth. The apparent contradiction that chuam refers to is not a contradiction at all. What chuam missed is something that I've already stated in this thread: the frame of reference from which the creation story is told changes between verses 1 and 2.

Consider verse 2:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
If you miss the last (italicized) phrase in this verse, you have contradicting accounts of the creation of the "heavens." Were the "heavens" created before the stars and the "greater light" (sun) and "lesser light" (moon) referred to in verse 16 (on day 4)? Of course not. With verse two establishing the frame of reference (or the context) as that of an observer located on the surface of the earth, the creation events progress along naturally and without contradiction. Then why does it seem like the stars, the "great light", and the lesser light were "created" on day 4? From the point of view of an observer on the earth, "day 4" would be exactly when the earth's atmosphere transformed from transleucent to transparent, according to planetary science.

I think it would be helpful to list something that helped me understand the nature of the Genesis 1 creation events. Here is a breakdown of the Genesis 1 creation miracles in total: (taken from the pamphlet Genesis 1: A Scientific Perspective, by Hugh Ross)

1. bringing the universe into existence
2. transforming the atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. creating a stable water cycle
4. creating the moon
5. creating land and oceans in equilibrium
6. creating plant life on the land
7. transforming the atmosphere from transleucent to transparent
8. creating complex sea animals
9. creating birds
10. creating complex land animals
11. creating man
12. creating woman

(If you think any of this is out of order, then go back and check them for yourself comparing it to chapter 1).

Now the supposed contradiction can be explained by noting #7 on this list. When the earth's atmosphere transitions from transleucent to transparent (as planetary scientists predict), it is then possible to resolve the stars, sun, moon, etc. as separate lights, and that's what day 4 is referring to.

On a more personal level, this is partly why I as a scientist find Genesis 1 so remarkable and such compelling evidence of its divinely inspired nature. As I go back and look at the events that are describied in Genesis 1, from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the earth, the events are perfectly consistent with what science tells us how it happened by noting the fossil record, planetary science, geology, etc. Unfortunately, those untrained in this type of science will not be able to appreciate this fully, and I apoligize for that. However, if any of you who are interested in this sort of thing ever happen to pick up an astronomy or biological sciences or geology book and compare this order of events that genesis 1 relates to the events that scientists theorize happened, then you will see what I mean. The consistency with modern science is impeccable and I would argue that it would be impossible to blindly guess this order correctly, without divine inspiration.

And I hate to do this, but I have to address a statement made by chuam here. It is very frustrating to dialogue when chuam displays a lack of reasoning, facts, scientific knowledge, and epistemic humility in discussing science in some of his posts. With statements like these:


And the Cosmic Microwave Blackbody Radiation is not evidence of an old cosmos. And if they don't have those, the cosmologists basically don't have much other evidence to work on.
...with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to support these assertions, I'm just not sure how worth my time it is in responding to him, so I just might ignore any blatantly incorrect posts by him in the future. (and just for the record, it's Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, not "Blackbody" Radiation, which once again gives me an idea as to how much science chuam knows).

And to clarify something else: I did not say that the best evidence for a universe/earth is the light from distant stars. I've already posted in this thread that there is numerous physical evidence that is measured independently from astrophysics, geology, paleontology, etc. that all supports an age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and an age of the universe around 14 billion years.

And in my next post, I'd like to address inkspot's question...

[inkspot]

Thanks Tim, you're doing great. Although I cannot understand it all, I share your joy in seeing how science and Genesis seem to dovetail in a way which makes sense and can enhance our faith.
:)

[Charn_Tim]

Great, thanks Tim. No worries, just whenever you have time. you're a student, right? So I imagine you are very busy right now!
:)
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this stuff. Yeah, I am a student, I will be graduating in around 3 weeks which makes it doubly stressful, but whatever :)...then it's off to grad school!

Well, what I wanted to say a while back in this thread addresses the question of how we should interpret Genesis 1 and the word "yom" in particular, and the history of the "orthodox" interpretation of this passage. Specifically, it has to do with the history of how organizations such as answers in genesis and the creation research institute (who hold to the "day = 24 hours at all costs" interpretation) got started. (I get most of this information from a book called A Matter of Days, by Dr. Hugh Ross, and I found it very interesting and informative, and I hope others do too. The best part is, you don't have to be a scientist to appreciate this ;) ).

Due to overwhelming scientific evidence accumulating over the 20th century in support of the big bang theory of cosmology and the billions of years age for the earth and universe, some Christians saw a conflict with science and the Bible. The question of how Christians should interpret the first chapter in the Bible (and determine if it conflicted with the discoveries of modern science) was first seriously addressed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformation.net/cor/ICBIbkgrnd.htm) (ICBI) in 1982, when they convened to discuss the age of the universe and the earth.

At this conference, three papers were presented: 1) by Walter Bradley, professor of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A&M university and a former young-earth advocate (and former Mech. Eng. department head. You can also read about him in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith-chapter 3-as he is one of the scholars whom Lee interviews in this book). 2) Henry Morris (founder and president of the Institute for Creation Research) who presented the case for the 6 24 hour days interpretation. 3) Lastly, Gleason Archer, professor of Old Testament and Semitic studies presented an analysis of the original language of the Genesis text.

After the council (which was mainly composed of evangelical theologians) finished hearing and discussing the three papers, deliberating for many hours, the group concluded that: adhering to 6 24 hour days is NOT essential to belief in biblical inerrancy. The council then composed a set of statements with respect to scripture and natural science, and all but Morris agreed to sign it, (going against the mainstream, orthodox, evangelical view of the theologians).

Finally, when it became clear that Morris would reject anything but a flat denial of ANY possibility other than a 144 hour creation week, the group reworded the statments in a way that wouldn't condemn any position of the dates of creation. (In the book, it lists the final set of statements-affirmations and denial regarding science and the scriptures from the council). The council did this in hopes that the age of the universe/earth issue (among other scientific findings) would not become a source of controversy and division among orthodox Christians. However, shortly afterwards, Henry Morris founded Institute for Creation Research, opening the door for unecessary division and controversy surrounding this issue.

Now, I have a question to young earthers in this thread. I'm pretty sure that none of you have read the original Hebrew or visited all the issues/questions surrounding the text in as in-depth a way as this council on Biblical inerrancy has. So basically, you are taking the interpretation of Henry Morris over the interpretation of the ICBI and other evangelical Christians (like C.S. Lewis!) by faith, that Genesis 1 SAYS God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours some 10 000 years or so ago. Why would you trust this interpretation of Henry Morris and CRI over the interpretation of other scholars and theologians of the ICBI (and elsewhere)?

[inkspot]

I expect some of our young-earth advocates will need to check the references and get back to us ...
:)
Wow, graduation in three weeks, Tim! That's fabulous! Congratulations!

[chuam8919]

Consider verse 2:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
If you miss the last (italicized) phrase in this verse, you have contradicting accounts of the creation of the "heavens." Were the "heavens" created before the stars and the "greater light" (sun) and "lesser light" (moon) referred to in verse 16 (on day 4)? Of course not. With verse two establishing the frame of reference (or the context) as that of an observer located on the surface of the earth, the creation events progress along naturally and without contradiction. Then why does it seem like the stars, the "great light", and the lesser light were "created" on day 4? From the point of view of an observer on the earth, "day 4" would be exactly when the earth's atmosphere transformed from transleucent to transparent, according to planetary science.No, there is no contradiction of the heavens, CT. In the Bible, there are three "heavens" mentioned. Heaven, where God abides, heaven the atmosphere, and heaven the cosmos. And the "heavens" do not necessarily have to come after the stars etc. are created. It could mean the Heaven, where God abides" created with the cosmos and the Earth's atmosphere (it does not necessarily include the firmament) were created all at once. As onlymystory said, "heavens" does not necessarily mean the stars and sun and moon. It could very well be just the void of space that was created. With your last statement, it's misleading in my opinion. In all honesty, from what I read in Genesis 1, the first time the concluding sentence to a days' work by God appeared (evening and morning") was after Light was said to come into being (which was created before the stars and the sun and moon). And again I restate. The first verse in Genesis 1 does not necessarily mean that the earth and heavens were created along with Day and Night. As you said, it would not make sense (if we assume the first verse is applied to the first day) because the Bible says stars were created after that. However, you've been giving me the impression that you're not really sure how to reply my statement that the first verse is a summary of events, with the second verse starting to go into the details.

I think it would be helpful to list something that helped me understand the nature of the Genesis 1 creation events. Here is a breakdown of the Genesis 1 creation miracles in total: (taken from the pamphlet Genesis 1: A Scientific Perspective, by Hugh Ross)

1. bringing the universe into existence
2. transforming the atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. creating a stable water cycle
4. creating the moon
5. creating land and oceans in equilibrium
6. creating plant life on the land
7. transforming the atmosphere from transleucent to transparent
8. creating complex sea animals
9. creating birds
10. creating complex land animals
11. creating man
12. creating woman

(If you think any of this is out of order, then go back and check them for yourself comparing it to chapter 1).

Now the supposed contradiction can be explained by noting #7 on this list. When the earth's atmosphere transitions from transleucent to transparent (as planetary scientists predict), it is then possible to resolve the stars, sun, moon, etc. as separate lights, and that's what day 4 is referring to.Not to sound impudent, but #7's a perfect slaughtering of the Bible in my opinion. It does not say that the atmosphere transitioned from bbeing translucent to transparent. What verse 6 and 7 says is this (from NIV, so thee's no dispute).

[Genesis 1:6,7] "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so."

The waters, CT, the waters. You had been often quoting "...Spirit... hovering...waters...". What two kinds of bodies of water we know exists in Earth? There's the sky with water vapour and then there's the seas, lakes, etc. that we find on the earth. And we know there's a separation between the bodies of water on Earth and water vapour in the sky.

On a more personal level, this is partly why I as a scientist find Genesis 1 so remarkable and such compelling evidence of its divinely inspired nature. As I go back and look at the events that are describied in Genesis 1, from the point of view of an observer on the surface of the earth, the events are perfectly consistent with what science tells us how it happened by noting the fossil record, planetary science, geology, etc. Unfortunately, those untrained in this type of science will not be able to appreciate this fully, and I apoligize for that. However, if any of you who are interested in this sort of thing ever happen to pick up an astronomy or biological sciences or geology book and compare this order of events that genesis 1 relates to the events that scientists theorize happened, then you will see what I mean. The consistency with modern science is impeccable and I would argue that it would be impossible to blindly guess this order correctly, without divine inspiration.It appears at first glance that you've been ignoring what I said about the age of the stars, CT. Irregardless about the age of the universe, the age of the stars must be younger than the earth. Do the "science facts" follow this? Again, this is assuming that the first verse is not a summarization of of what God did for creation. I have also picked up my biology textbook, CT, and what I find there isn't pretty. There's still talk about vestigial organs, giving the "remnant legs" of snakes as an example, as well as for some whales.. That's quite pathetic, because they're attavhed to muscles to aid mating. And they're still using the weak argument of the Miller-Urey experiment. And from what I learnt in biology class, macroevolution ,that some Christians say was the medium through which God brought us into being, was really just extrapolating from microevolution that really isn't very close to creating new species. And I have lloked at the order of the animals they say came to be. It is a direct inversion of events listed in the Bible.

And I hate to do this, but I have to address a statement made by chuam here. It is very frustrating to dialogue when chuam displays a lack of reasoning, facts, scientific knowledge, and epistemic humility in discussing science in some of his posts. With statements like theseAnd here I thought you were able to understand what I was talking about. The CMB does not directly tell the age of the universe, the temperature's just given. It's really the kind of calculations they got from that that they used to determine the age of the universe.

(and just for the record, it's Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, not "Blackbody" Radiation, which once again gives me an idea as to how much science chuam knows).Not to sound insulting, but I didn't know you had a lack of humor CT. Either that or you might not have heard of a parody.

And to clarify something else: I did not say that the best evidence for a universe/earth is the light from distant stars. I've already posted in this thread that there is numerous physical evidence that is measured independently from astrophysics, geology, paleontology, etc. that all supports an age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and an age of the universe around 14 billion years.Ah...and yet you gave me that impression by the phrasing by asking me a sort-of rhetorical question: "then what about the distant sstarlight?" (paraphrase on my part) And yet again, I have no argument against saying that the universe is really old. But what is not said, CT, is the evidence for stars to be younger than the earth. The stars, moon and sun and planets do not constitute the universe. The universe is the container for them.

Also, if the earth really is that old, then please explain the conflict it comes with the genealogie of Jesus? Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, no? Then if we do apply what you said about yom, then Adam must've been at least 9000+ years old when he died. But anyway, do tell me where the dividing line is in Genesis. How do you know that the yom = indefinite time is not applicable to the rest of Genesis? Where is the cut-off point? And why is yom = indefinite time only used in Genesis, then? All the other definitions of yom are used multiple times all over the Bible, including prophetic time of day=a year. Yet why is that other definition of yom only used in one occurence in Genesis 1?

[chuam8919]

Due to overwhelming scientific evidence accumulating over the 20th century in support of the big bang theory of cosmology and the billions of years age for the earth and universe, some Christians saw a conflict with science and the Bible. The question of how Christians should interpret the first chapter in the Bible (and determine if it conflicted with the discoveries of modern science) was first seriously addressed by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformation.net/cor/ICBIbkgrnd.htm) (ICBI) in 1982, when they convened to discuss the age of the universe and the earth.To be honest CT, it might have improved the scientific communities' credibility and reliability if they would let creationists have their rebuttals published in their journals. They do it very rarely, if at all.

At this conference, three papers were presented: 1) by Walter Bradley, professor of After the council (which was mainly composed of evangelical theologians) finished hearing and discussing the three papers, deliberating for many hours, the group concluded that: adhering to 6 24 hour days is NOT essential to belief in biblical inerrancy. The council then composed a set of statements with respect to scripture and natural science, and all but Morris agreed to sign it, (going against the mainstream, orthodox, evangelical view of the theologians).If it is not essential to take it literally, then there's also no need to take the Ten Commandments literally. After all, it would mean that the Fourth Commandment is not literal about the seven days. Therefore, if the Fourth Commandment is not literal, then what biblical evidence do we have that the other nine would be literal? And then it would be disastrous, because the Fourth Commandment is one of the prophetic messages declared in Revelation. The Ten Commandments have to also be taken literal for the reason that it is through it that God metes out judgement!

Now, I have a question to young earthers in this thread. I'm pretty sure that none of you have read the original Hebrew or visited all the issues/questions surrounding the text in as in-depth a way as this council on Biblical inerrancy has. So basically, you are taking the interpretation of Henry Morris over the interpretation of the ICBI and other evangelical Christians (like C.S. Lewis!) by faith, that Genesis 1 SAYS God created the universe in 144 consecutive hours some 10 000 years or so ago. Why would you trust this interpretation of Henry Morris and CRI over the interpretation of other scholars and theologians of the ICBI (and elsewhere)?I'll answer your question by another question. How could the Jewish scholars have been so wrong about the manner of Jesus' coming even so much that John the Baptist was, for a time, fooled? Leep in mind that at that time, the rabbis and scribes, etc. were the equivalent of our beloved scholars. And then you might say: "Well, that was then, now is now...we know better now". Well, they also thought that way during Jesus' time. They thought they were able to avoid the mistake of their fathers by making such strict rules about Shabbat. Yet, here Jesus came and showed them their errors and they were angered by it.

The majority has been prophesied by the Bible to be lost in the Return of Jesus. It was the majority that wanted Jesus crucified. It was the majority that was destroyed in Sodom and Gomorragh. And it was the majority who did not think they were able to deafeat Goliath. It was the majority who followed Ahab and Jezebel and who shunned the prophets of God. And lastly, it was the majority that believed that the earth was flat even when the Scriptures explicitly said that the earth was spherical-like in shape.

No, Charn_Tim. I do not think it is ever safe to just follow the majority in this sin-ridden world.

Btw, to those who said that it's impossible to conceive a new-born child sinful, think again. The child does not have a sin record. But the child commits sin. The child only thinks of I I I. True, the child doesn't know better, yet the child still commits it. It is those times that we, in our ignorance, unintentionally commit sin that God closes one "eye".

[Charn_Tim]

If it is not essential to take it literally, then there's also no need to take the Ten Commandments literally.
If you truly believe this, then there's no point in me discussing this with you any further. And I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post. I will say this though: since this is a C.S. Lewis website, you might want to check out his thoughts on the matter, in the book, Reflections on the Psalms, where he specifically addresses the nature of the Genesis creation account, and how "literally" it is meant to be taken. In fact, you really ought to read his entire chapter in that book, called "Scripture"-chapter 11. I think you might find it a real eye-opener. Maybe you'll rethink your "literalist" position with regards to Biblical interpretation.

[chuam8919]

If you truly believe this, then there's no point in me discussing this with you any further. And I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of your post.Hang on, CT, don't get your hair tangled over this. Remember that this is a forum to post our views, and there's no need to get all fussed up about it. You posted yours, which seemed to keep firing at eveything I said in a way that strongly suggested that you intended to say that I'm a hopeless, blithering idiot with little knowledge of science. Then I posted mine, while trying to phrase it in such a way that you won't feel like I'm a fool just trying to whack you over the head with a sledgehammer. And now you ignore my post. What's with the lack of sportsmanship? We all know it's a hotly debated topic, but that doesn't mean people should start giving each other implied knuckle-sandwiches in words.

My statement you quoted was apparently misunderstood. I'll just say the hidden question plainly :) . Why, of all Ten Commandments, is the Fourth the only one to be not taken literally? That would be inconsistent with God's character, and He's not inconsistent. Whenever God gave an instruction in the Bible to His people, it was always a literal command. That's what the Ten Commandments are. Yet why is it that you seem to propose that the Fourth need not be taken literally? Why is it the only Commandment to be considered if it is to be taken literally? The Bible's instructions are not for us to tinker with, it's our view that should be tinkered with.

[timbalionguy]

Neevil, I would definitely urge you to go back and read some of the earlier posts because we've been debating this for a while. But if I'm remembering Tim's arguments correctly (and boy will I hear it if I mess them up :D ) the Bible never actually says it happened immediately. If you look closer at those verses it says "And God said let there be light, and there was light." Note that it doesn't say light happened immediately. Have you ever noticed that when you light a candle during a black out at first you don't see anything? The candle lights up the area its around but not much more. But as your eyes adjust and you begin to use the light from the candle to focus, you start seeing more of the room. And eventually that one candle can light up the whole room. It just takes time. I believe the idea can be used the same way with the long creation idea. First because science keeps proving that the earth and especially the universe is older. (And I agree that its silly for God to have put false signs up.) And those verses just don't say it happened immediately. God has all the time in the world. He could have taken however long he wants to in creating the world. And there are some earlier posts that talk about other places yom is mentioned where it doesn't refer to a 24 hour day. I would encourage you to look at them.

We have to be careful when we poo-poo science. Although a lot of scientists might not be believers, they are as interested in the truth as we are. God challenges us o learn the mysteries of His creation, the process of creation being one of these.

Although you could question this (and anything else--(Kennedy assanation thread, anyone??), there is a lot of good science out there that says the universe is 13.5 billion years old +/- a fairly small amount. Many other things make sense when this number becomes fixed, as well as other controversial things, like the cosmological constant. But taken in the pure light of science without philosophy, there must be a darn good reason why science is giving us these fairly precise numbers.

To my knowledge, when all the dust settles, science and scripture always come into harmony, and I think they eventually will agree here as well.

As far as literal 24 hour days go, I don't believe we truly understand any measure of time as when looked at from God's perspective. That time is relative is clearly spelled out in scripture in 2 Peter 3:8-- 'A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a say. Since this contradiction cannot truly contradict itself, it proves what Einstein and others have been trying to tell us all along-- time is elative. Therefore, a creation 'day' can be as arbitrarily long or short as required by God.

Sometimes, I thonk we try to fit God into a mold of our creation. God doesn't fit into any molds. We sometimes have to look way beyond ourselves and realize God does not have these limits we assign to him, and the sooner we learn to look beyond them, the happier we will be as Christians. (Heck, for all we know, maybe our world was created by a singing lion. It would breally cool if it was!)

Evolution as a theory is flawed. So called 'biblical creationism' is even more deeply flawed. The real truth lies somewhere between these camps. It is up to us to find it.

The length of the days in creation does not underpin your faith. Far more importance is repentance from sin and receiving Jesus, building relationship with Him through prayer, meditation, and bible study, and leading a Godly lifestyle.

[Charn_Tim]

The objection regarding the 10 commandments (and specifically the 4th) has already been answered in this thread. You can read that here (http://narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161328&postcount=264) (my third paragraph in that post).

Welcome to the discussion, timbalionguy. Thanks for giving your thoughts on this matter. I would especially like to agree with this:


To my knowledge, when all the dust settles, science and scripture always come into harmony, and I think they eventually will agree here as well.
As I've said in this thread before, to me the similarities between this "crisis" of interpretation is analogous to the "crisis" between Galileo and Copernicus' (belief/discovery in a heliocentric solar system) and the mainstream view/interpretation of the church ("the Bible says it's a geocentric solar system"). So the church thought that science must have been wrong, but now of course, everyone recognizes that it was an error in interpretation. (Actually, it wasn't until the late 19th century when the Catholic church officially forgave Galileo and admitted the mistake was theirs). Today, some in the church feel that Genesis 1 says that the universe/earth was created in 144 consecutive hours, around 10 000 years ago, whereas modern science says otherwise. I wonder how long it's gonna take some groups to admit their interpretation error this time.

[The First Joke]

i haven't read any of your posts, but i just wanted to say that christians can believe in evolution as long as they remember that someone had to create the earth and that someone gave more dignity to humans.... that someone is god. i do believe in evolution.

[echoscot]

i haven't read any of your posts, but i just wanted to say that christians can believe in evolution as long as they remember that someone had to create the earth and that someone gave more dignity to humans.... that someone is god. i do believe in evolution.


I used to feel as you do, then I looked a lot more closely at both. Evolution actually is still only a theory, not one shred of proof. They have found numerous species that have existed and died out, yes. ie The Dinosaurs, (not the TV Shoe). Then they developed theories, the dinosaurs were early reptiles that came up out of the sea, now it is that they may actually be predecessors of birds. Yet no one can show an example of when one species gave birth to another, for evolution to be fact that chain would have to be proven.

For example, show how a Stegasaurus laid eggs that eventually hatched into something else that eventually became a penguin. There is no chain, no links, nothing but a theory.

It becomes more evident to me that God did not "evolve" man from any other primate, but each species was created unique, though with similarities. This entire theory was based on the origin of species, which Darwin wrote after noticing variations in hummingbirds, that's it. People have developed it and played with it, but it is nothing more than Fan Fiction. There is no proof to it.

It is very similar to writing the further adventures of Shasta and Bree for example. We take the initial character types, establish rules such as how do they act and talk by observing Lewis initial writing of them, then move forward and expostulate.

Evolution is the same thing, wow maybe we all came from common ancestors because we have seen similarities in our classifications. Well, if it did happen, it would have to follow some sort of pattern or rules. Let's think for a minute, okay Lions hunt prey and wipe them out, so may be there is kind of a "survival of the fittest" at work here. Yeah, that's it, because IF a species hunts another species to extinction, then they become dominant and that's why we don't see them anymore. Or maybe different species had better environmental survival techniques, against an ice age or other cataclysmic change in the earth's weather. These are great theories, but nothing shows that one species gave birth to another, we can't even force it to happen in laboratories. All we have proven is that some species existed and died out.

This post has gone on longer than I intended it to. Sorry, I just find evolution requires as much or even more faith than believing that a Supreme God created everything.

If new evidence shows up I am more than willing to reevaluate my position.

[dude]

I used to feel as you do, then I looked a lot more closely at both. Evolution actually is still only a theory, not one shred of proof.
Yay! My position 100%
:D

Although obviously things do evolve if not necessarily through the mechanism Darwin suggested.

[Miss Freckles]

we just had evolution in biology and my opinion is that firstly it's only a theory and it says everywhere that it is the "current opinion" so whenever a scientist comes up with another theory that sounds better, people will believe this one and forget about evolution.
but people believed in a god creating the earth for thousands of years and they still believe in it! so i think it is way more reasonable to believe that than in evolution!

[dude]

That might well be true Miss Freckles.
When I believed in Darwinian evolution I didn't really think of it as a belief so much as a fact. I was amazed to learn that it was only one side of the story though, and not necessarily the one that fits the evidence closest.

[imnotobsessedohno]

Although obviously things do evolve if not necessarily through the mechanism Darwin suggested.

I've only just come to this thread, I've only read the first eight pages and only have two minutes, but I thought I'd contribute a bit...

Firstly, there have been many advances in the theories of evolution since Darwin. Even so, we can see today microevolution of populations working exactly in the way Darwin suggested - on the sixth page (IIRC) is an example of the peppered moth; this is what Darwin termed 'natural selection'. However, there are a number of other factors at work in evolution (here I am talking about microevolution, which is undeniably active), the most prominent being genetic drift. This is essentially more to do with chance and even 'luck' than 'fitness'; the central idea being that the frequency of one generation's genes will not be a fair representation of the frequency of the same genes in the next generation simply due to chance. ...

ahh, well I have to go, and my computer at home is lying on bits in the dining room ... so I will write more some other time.

[echoscot]

I've only just come to this thread, I've only read the first eight pages and only have two minutes, but I thought I'd contribute a bit...

Firstly, there have been many advances in the theories of evolution since Darwin. Even so, we can see today microevolution of populations working exactly in the way Darwin suggested - on the sixth page (IIRC) is an example of the peppered moth; this is what Darwin termed 'natural selection'. However, there are a number of other factors at work in evolution (here I am talking about microevolution, which is undeniably active), the most prominent being genetic drift. This is essentially more to do with chance and even 'luck' than 'fitness'; the central idea being that the frequency of one generation's genes will not be a fair representation of the frequency of the same genes in the next generation simply due to chance. ...

ahh, well I have to go, and my computer at home is lying on bits in the dining room ... so I will write more some other time.

Hopefully your computer will evolve back together, LOL

As far as microevolution, that is a change to evolutionary theory. There still,even at the micro level, not been any change from one species to another. It is simply adaptation of the species, but an amoeba is still an amoeba, just as a paramecium is still a paramecium. The flu virus has undergone multiple changes as well, but is still the flu virus. It has not evolved into a new species. That is where the whole thing begins to fall apart.

[chuam8919]

As far as microevolution, that is a change to evolutionary theory. There still,even at the micro level, not been any change from one species to another. It is simply adaptation of the species, but an amoeba is still an amoeba, just as a paramecium is still a paramecium. The flu virus has undergone multiple changes as well, but is still the flu virus. It has not evolved into a new species. That is where the whole thing begins to fall apart.
True, true. Even my biology teacher said that what they basically did was extrapolate. That, given enough time, the microevolution causes some parts to undergo a change through macroevolution. Or something along those lines. But we all know that that is hardly ever works. Just because a guy's weight increases constantly throughout his life, doesn't mean it'll keep increasing past his death.

[dude]

on the sixth page (IIRC) is an example of the peppered moth; this is what Darwin termed 'natural selection'.
My view is that the peppered moth being evidence for 'natural selection' is a common misconception based on not knowing the whole of that particular story.

[dude]

True, true. Even my biology teacher said that what they basically did was extrapolate. That, given enough time, the microevolution causes some parts to undergo a change through macroevolution. Or something along those lines. But we all know that that is hardly ever works. Just because a guy's weight increases constantly throughout his life, doesn't mean it'll keep increasing past his death.
I agree - people generally haven't looked at the speed of Darwinian evolution. Part of the confusion I think is that the world and the universe seem so old from a human point of view. But the chances of all this happening by chance are non-existent.

My own musings on the subject these days are that without intelligent life you'd never get a world like this because nothing would have any reason to survive or evolve - it would be just as happy dead.

[timbalionguy]

personally, i believe in god in a faithful sense as in i have faith in religion and i do believe there is a greater being, in christianitys case, god.

but i must admit i do believe in evolution, im not going to go into how we were created or the universe because i just dont know enough about it to start throwing my weight around as if i were an expert.

i believe in facts and scientific explanations i guess thats just my nature. but science and religion are 2 very different things. science relies on facts and being able to solve things logically. Religion on the other hand relies on faith, you cant prove religion, you can however have faith in it.


I am like many others here, who do not let the creation/evolution thing undermine their faith.

That said, both creation and evolution are wrong....and they are both right. I believe there was a big bang. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I beluieve the earth is 4.76 billion years old. I believe that higher ordre life forms were derived from lower order life forms by a process that looks to us like evolution. But I also believe the earth was created in 7 days. It is every bit as foolhardy to abandon sound science for faith as it it to believe strictly in science.

I am not (at least tonight) going to get into deep arguments about relativity, and the unequivicol scriptural proof thereof, the second law of thermodynamice, etc. All i will say is that there is too much good science out there for us to blithely brush it aside. Science does not have all the answers. But, they have a pretty good grasp on what form the right answers will most likely take. When you look at the history of science and Christianity, you find that many commonly held disparities are often eliminated when enough science is thrown at them.

So, lets enjoy learning about the wonders of God's creation, and believe what we are being told by scientists whose only goal is the truth. Let us shun those who twist reality around to fit a contrived and untenable situation to support their viewpoint. Let us instead learn from nature as God implied we should in Romans 1. Eventually, we will find God's truth and nature-as-determined-by-science really do line up well.

[Danielsky]

1) For example, show how a Stegasaurus laid eggs that eventually hatched into something else that eventually became a penguin. There is no chain, no links, nothing but a theory.

2) IF a species hunts another species to extinction, then they become dominant and that's why we don't see them anymore.


1) Well...i must say that there is a link that was proved between dinosaurs and birds.

When the dinosaurs where at their apogee...there where a lot of spices...one of them was the "archeopteryx" whose skeleton was found a hundred years ago. The strange thing was the position in which he died. He died folded on himself. During the fossilization the structure of his skeleton remained the same as when he died...there was only a substitution of the material of his bones.
When his skeleton was found, last century the amazing thing was that on his skeleton there were prints of feathers, belonging to the archeopteryx himself. When he died in this position some prints were marked in the ground. So, for example that a proof of the evolution between reptiles and birds. The archeopteryx was a flying reptile, similar to the dinosaurs....he has teeth and an anatomy which is similar to the riptiles. But at the same time he has the fundamental characteristic of birds...the feather!

Of course the adaptation to the flying habitat was not over. During the centuries from it a lot of other birds were born...similar to him but, more adapted.
With no teeth because to catch a fishes or to it insects you don't need to have teeth...and so on.

This depends on a fact. The dinos were at the end of thier evolution...their were strongly specialized....so the creatures that comes frome them has consumes practically all their potential in term of possibilities of evolution.

The today's birds are very differentiated....but if you see to their anatomy...not to the colors of their feathers and to their dimensions and so on, which are "only" superficial adaptation, you can see that the structure of their body is the same either for a penguin or for an eagle...either for a condor or for a pigeon....the difference that we can see are only superficial difference, not to their skeleton or of their structure but only of their feathers, beaks dimensions and other things which are only ecologic adaptations.

The mammals which comes from the replites are indeed much more different for the aspect of the potential. The came from the primitive reptiles...they were not so adapted to their habitat but for this reason they have a huge evolution potential...in fact the mammals are many and differentiated also for the skeleton and other deep aspects....because they come from primitive forms....primitive yes but with a huge future! ;)

2) It is almost impossible that a spice hunts another to its extintion because there is always a sort of ballance....for example....1000 lions an 1000 of antelopes. If the number of lions grows too much, let's say, the number of antelopes grows thin....so after a short perion many lions will die beacuse they can not eat. But if there are less lions the antilopes can live longer and have time and space to reproduce and grew in numbers....at a certain points there will be a huge number of antilopes so the small number of lions have a lot of possibilities of eating....and so on it is a ballance cirle....it is difficult....practicle impossible also in maths. terms that all the lions died of starvation and it's also impossible that all the antilopes died eaten.



If you like i can post something else about the evolution so you can understand that for example...the outline of our arts (hands and feet) was already present in some species of fishes from whom the amphibians derive from...which is the some in man or in every terrestrial animal.

If you are intrested i can tell my opinion in all his aspects....i don't want to change your own view but only to give you some things to think on! :)


I'm sorry for my english...but i will do my best to explain myself properly.

P.S. I don't want to demonstrate that evolution exists and there is no God in the evolution history....i strongly believe that God directs the evolution process...but i want to demonstrate that is absolutely wrong to read some part of the Bible literally. It is wrong because the intention of the Bible in my opinion is not to demonstrate the biological origin of mankind but to give man the certainty that man is not a casual thing but that his presence in the world was a huge act of God's love....the evolution must not be read as the negation of God's creation. The Bible explains the aspects of love and faith....the biology explains the way in which this wonderful act of love was done.

[echoscot]

daniel

First, let me give you a big commendation. That was an excellent post on Evolutionary theory. I am very familiar with Archeaoptryx, though I can't spell it to save my neck. Allow me to show you, using your example, where I stand with evolution:

1. Archeoptryx has elements of bird and dinosaur bone structures. That said, that is all we know. To prove an evolutionary link, you need to show how a species of dinosaur, ie raptor since they are the ones most people think gave life to this, went through fundamental changes to produce an Arche. Then the Arche went through fundamental changes to produce some other species of bird. So far all we have is conjecture. So nothing is conclusive except that Arche was a species with some unique characteristics that lived at one time and now apparently died out.

2. As we only have one near complet skeleton Arche, we can't be sure of the spread of the species. Even if evolution turns out to be fact, we can't be sure the impact this species had or didn't have on it's processes.

3. It is also only speculative that Arch is actually a bird and not some other species of raptor. There were no feathers found attached to it, just some imprints nearby in the mud, now stone. It was surmised from this that they were attached, other possibilities include the possibility that if it were a small specie of raptor, it might have been killed just after eating some bird species, which could then be conjectured to prove that birds and dinosaurs coexisted. But since that doesn't fit the current evolutionary theory, it is often rejected without further evaluation.

4. A good counter example is the coelecanth. I'm sure you have heard of that, long before you were in school it was used as the ultimate example of a link between species of fish. Unfortunately for that theory, some fishermen off the coast of South America caught one that was still alive, so much for being a link. The theory was revised.

That final point is my whole issue with evolution. In most science classes we are taught that circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove something as fact. You have to have conclusive evidence that is repeatable and not just an accident and documented. We have not been able to observe or document anything (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) about evolution, so it remains a theory. However, many schools teach it as absolute fact. It has never been proven. As I said in my earlier post, we only have evidence to support that a whole bunch of different species have existed on our planet and then died out. Heck, we have even seen some die out during our lifetimes, the Dodo Bird for example, it didn't evolve into anything. Even on the microbial scale, we still have amoebas and paramecium, the one-celled animals and plants haven't evolved at all, they have mutated and changed, but are still essentially the same species.

[chuam8919]

That said, both creation and evolution are wrong....and they are both right. I believe there was a big bang. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I beluieve the earth is 4.76 billion years old. I believe that higher ordre life forms were derived from lower order life forms by a process that looks to us like evolution. But I also believe the earth was created in 7 days. It is every bit as foolhardy to abandon sound science for faith as it it to believe strictly in science.I love science, but this is a bit foolhardy. Those ages they get are not exactly from measurements, as in something as tangible as measuring the length with a ruler. They get it by equations and assumptions that something has remained constant throughout. There's also an ethical issue with what they do with the ages. For example, when they calculate the age of a rock through radioactivity, they get a plethora of ages varying drastically. And if there are any ages that seem ridiculous to them, like 10,000 years old, they just toss it out.

And supposedly there were a couple of times when they dated samples from the same leg bone of some mammoth or dinosaur, and they varied greatly. From the same leg bone! :eek:

That final point is my whole issue with evolution. In most science classes we are taught that circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove something as fact. You have to have conclusive evidence that is repeatable and not just an accident and documented. We have not been able to observe or document anything (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) about evolution, so it remains a theory. However, many schools teach it as absolute fact. It has never been proven. As I said in my earlier post, we only have evidence to support that a whole bunch of different species have existed on our planet and then died out. Heck, we have even seen some die out during our lifetimes, the Dodo Bird for example, it didn't evolve into anything. Even on the microbial scale, we still have amoebas and paramecium, the one-celled animals and plants haven't evolved at all, they have mutated and changed, but are still essentially the same species.Hear, hear! I fully agree with you there on the archaeopteryx and the classroom, echo. Except the part about the theory.

Technically speaking, it's not even a theory. When speaking about evolution, the only thing that is questionable is macroevolution (the change of one kind of animal to another). With macroevolution, it's actually extrapolation. There's no concrete evidence. A theory is: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Since it's not exactly widely accepted (when polled, the majority of Americans and British believed more in creation or ID), and it's never been able to be tested, it's more of a hypothesis than theory! :D

[Danielsky]

daniel

First, let me give you a big commendation. That was an excellent post on Evolutionary theory. I am very familiar with Archeaoptryx, though I can't spell it to save my neck. Allow me to show you, using your example, where I stand with evolution:

1. Archeoptryx has elements of bird and dinosaur bone structures. That said, that is all we know. To prove an evolutionary link, you need to show how a species of dinosaur, ie raptor since they are the ones most people think gave life to this, went through fundamental changes to produce an Arche. Then the Arche went through fundamental changes to produce some other species of bird. So far all we have is conjecture. So nothing is conclusive except that Arche was a species with some unique characteristics that lived at one time and now apparently died out.

2. As we only have one near complet skeleton Arche, we can't be sure of the spread of the species. Even if evolution turns out to be fact, we can't be sure the impact this species had or didn't have on it's processes.

3. It is also only speculative that Arch is actually a bird and not some other species of raptor. There were no feathers found attached to it, just some imprints nearby in the mud, now stone. It was surmised from this that they were attached, other possibilities include the possibility that if it were a small specie of raptor, it might have been killed just after eating some bird species, which could then be conjectured to prove that birds and dinosaurs coexisted. But since that doesn't fit the current evolutionary theory, it is often rejected without further evaluation.

4. A good counter example is the coelecanth. I'm sure you have heard of that, long before you were in school it was used as the ultimate example of a link between species of fish. Unfortunately for that theory, some fishermen off the coast of South America caught one that was still alive, so much for being a link. The theory was revised.

That final point is my whole issue with evolution. In most science classes we are taught that circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove something as fact. You have to have conclusive evidence that is repeatable and not just an accident and documented. We have not been able to observe or document anything (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) about evolution, so it remains a theory. However, many schools teach it as absolute fact. It has never been proven. As I said in my earlier post, we only have evidence to support that a whole bunch of different species have existed on our planet and then died out. Heck, we have even seen some die out during our lifetimes, the Dodo Bird for example, it didn't evolve into anything. Even on the microbial scale, we still have amoebas and paramecium, the one-celled animals and plants haven't evolved at all, they have mutated and changed, but are still essentially the same species.


Dear echoscot....i know that evolution it's only a theory....of course because it's science which has no dogmas but only possibilities...well

1) on the archeopteryx....we know many spices of dinosaurs and we can say that there are some connections, (comparative anatomy can show you that the structures of the skeleton and of others deep aspects are similar to dinosaurs but we know at the same time that, from his anatomy, that for example his teeth were less developed for a normal reptile....we can see that many bones are in the same place and has the same function of birds....for example we started to find skeleton of birds only AFTER the first reptile skeletons. That's the same for the amphibians. The first skeleton found was found AFTER the first fish skeleton and so on. For the archeopteryx we know that the feather prints are his own prints because they are in the same level of the rest of his skeleton....so they are contemporary. The archeopteryx is only a sign of the passage but it is a sign.

2) For the evolution of course we can't be sure exactly of the exact period in which a spice gives and change into another because the changes were slow and hard to find....but we can see that there are many structure that changes and that prove evolution. For example another prove comes from the comparative embryology....we can see from the embryos that many structure are similar so many animals are linked and we can see the "time line" in which the events and spices born grows and changes...and many times died. For the dinos for example....only for a casualty, the asteroid impact, the mammals conquered the world because a small rat or even a tiger against
a T-rex...

We can see that even the proteins in our body changes in the evolution and one in particular can give us the "parental grade" from two spices even man...it is the "cytochrome c". It's a very important protein which is in every life form....from the paramecium to man....and it has in every animal, even plants, the same function....but...the sequence of the blocks (the amino acids) are not the same...many are different...and they change with the time....for example...the evolution says that the frogs are more related to fish that we are...we confront the to protein sequence and we discover that we were right. Same for man and the so called "great monkeys"....only 8 block out of 160 are different. We can see that we came from them...we can see looking at the embryos and looking at the cerebral connections....the skeleton....and other important things.

For the paramecium and other so called basic creatures we can see that even them respond to the evolution....we have only to ask ourselves one question... were and are they well adapted to their habitat (they have food spaces and all they need)? YES so the don't need to evolve, to change....but PERHAPS in the past there were too much of them so let's suppose (we have the proves but let's say suppose) that some of them had developed the ability of obtain food from inorganic substance....that was a great thing because with this innovation they were independent and this thing that gave them this advantage (which genes were in their DNA)....on the others so they could reproduce easily so they pass their ability to theirs descends. This is only a stupid example to say that many basic spices were so well adapted that they manage to survive without evolving....but when the situation (lack of food, space air, etc) becomes dramatic the great variability.....which is in everyone DNA give to some parts of the population an advantage that in normal time was not so important but that suddenly became so determinant that...in a huge period of time...it produce a change in all the population....this is the evolution!

If you like....i'm here to go through this subject...i hope to have answer to all your question...if not please let me know and i'll glad to try to explain myself properly! :)

[Emily_Cullen]

I am christian and I would say I don't believe in evolution and no one can mke me believe in it when we learn about that in school I am gonna fall asleep during that part I believe God took dirt and water and formed us into the humans we are today so don't shove evolution in my face B/c I don't believe it :)

[Danielsky]

And if there are any ages that seem ridiculous to them, like 10,000 years old, they just toss it out.

And supposedly there were a couple of times when they dated samples from the same leg bone of some mammoth or dinosaur, and they varied greatly. From the same leg bone! :eek:

Hear, hear! I fully agree with you there on the archaeopteryx and the classroom, echo. Except the part about the theory.

Technically speaking, it's not even a theory. When speaking about evolution, the only thing that is questionable is macroevolution (the change of one kind of animal to another). With macroevolution, it's actually extrapolation. There's no concrete evidence. A theory is: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Since it's not exactly widely accepted (when polled, the majority of Americans and British believed more in creation or ID), and it's never been able to be tested, it's more of a hypothesis than theory! :D


Well perhaps it's true that as a science theory there has to be a debate but...

1) If you give to a person who study anatomy a bone of a t-rex everyone is able to recognize because it is so different from a mammal's one (the mammoth)

2) There can be an error in the dating of a bone or everything else but none of 10,000 years...it's ridiculous. 1,000 years perhaps....which is not so much in the history of our planet.

3) You have to know that evolution is well accepted among scientists....so accepted that people that think....even think that's not true can not be defined as a "scientist". This is because we know that there are many parts and many things to explain and to solve and all we have to work to improve the theory but that are so huge proves against creationism that is impossible even for a student not to consider them! Creationism is not a theory is pure imagination because you can not prove in any way...even with well accepted supposition and theories! There are some proves which cannot be ignored!

I also believe that God's is the force behind evolution and that he directed it...but i cannot accept a theory that has no proves, like creationism!

I'm sorry...i don't want to be offensive in any way...i only suggest you to read, if you like, something about evolution and try to think and see that are some signals....than you can believe whatever you want but before (i study the position of the Creationist by myself) try to understand the other side position....perhaps, it 'll be useful.

[echoscot]

Again, you only spoke conjecture. You keep saying you can "know" and "prove" but you haven't proven anything. Just because feathers and bones are in the same layer of dirt doesn't mean they belong to the same animal, as in the illustration I gave. It is possible that they do, but you can't "know" for sure. Near Dallas Texas is a great park where, when the river is at low tide you can walk in dinosaur footprints. There are also human footprints imbedded in the same level of rock right next to theirs. Based on the same level proof that you just gave, I could conclude that dinosaurs had human feet, but we both know that is ludicrous. There are other explanations for things being in the same strata of rock.

Just because you note similarities in bone structures you cannot prove that one animal species changed into another, you can only speculate. Embryionic development is not proof of evolution, either, simply a model by which some people believe it occured.

Maybe we are just dealing with a language barrier here, but to say science has no dogmas is an idealistic fallacy. Science has plenty of dogma. Evolution is a big one. You proved that in your own words right here:


3) You have to know that evolution is well accepted among scientists....so accepted that people that think....even think that's not true can not be defined as a "scientist". This is because we know that there are many parts and many things to explain and to solve and all we have to work to improve the theory but that are so huge proves against creationism that is impossible even for a student not to consider them! Creationism is not a theory is pure imagination because you can not prove in any way...even with well accepted supposition and theories! There are some proves which cannot be ignored!

I also believe that God's is the force behind evolution and that he directed it...but i cannot accept a theory that has no proves, like creationism!


I just don't even know what to say. To suggest that all scientists accept evolution and any that don't aren't real scientists is absurd. That is dogma at its best. At one time all scientists believed the earth was flat too, and any who didn't agree were kicked out of the club. Didn't make them any more right either. You have not presented one SHRED of proof, only more speculation and conjecture. And not really new or novel ones, at that. Then you state that you don't accept a theory that has no proofs, but you buy evolution hook, line and sinker.

Now as to the dating thing, that is also speculative. Carbon dating is accurate in some senses, but in other areas it is highly inaccurate. Again, all speculation and no proof. Just guess work as to how it could have happened.

I also didn't even ask you to give me a period of time over which it occurs. I realize it can occur over thousands of years. So the fossil record should be replete with numerous changing animals, but there isn't even one. Except the speculative things mentioned here, Archeaoptryx as an example. I asked to prove a complete chain of progression. That is gonna be tough, because it isn't there. You say they are hard to find, I say until they are found, it isn't proven. Although a "time line" has been taught, it was crafted out of speculation, not proof.


Adaptation is a tool by which some believe evolution occurs. It is very true that adaptation occurs, whether it results in evolution is guesswork. To this date, adaptation has never been observed to change one species into a new one. It has only served to alter within. The flu virus is an excellent example of this, it has not evolved, but it has adapted. It is still the flu virus though, all of its structures and dna are the same for the flu.

Similar protein structures also are not conclusive evidence, merely circumstantial. You and I have similar protein structures yet we have never even met let alone evolved into each other. There are many other available explanations for the similarities that you claim are "proof", yet the dogma of science refuses to acknowledge any contradiction to evolution. Heck, they will even hire groups like the ACLU to file suits over it.

When it comes, especially to the whole monkey chain that you have described, we cannot "see" or "know" or say conclusively anything except that there are noted similarities. To say that we came from the great apes is speculation based on observed similarities. There is no proof, chain of evidence to say for a fact that this happened. Only educated guesswork. You have defined what evolution is, but you have not proven it. Only rationalized the guesses that have been made.

I didn't understand your paragraph about the paramecium at all. Perhaps the language barrier thing, but let me clarify something. The only conlcusion we can make about them from the available proofs is that they adapt to the environment, not evolve. To reitirate an earlier point, adaptation is a means by which some believe evolution occurs, but that is a guess. We only know for sure that adaptation happens, we have no proof that it results in evolution, the change of one species into something new.

When you talk of large scale changes, over billions of years, there should be plenty of animals that are part fish, part reptile, then reptile, then part reptile and part dinosaur. ie. a stegasaurus that, as they lay new eggs and climates and such change, they start to change, the shield fades away, fur grows out, or wings or what have you. But we have no proof of any of that, even in your own paragraph, you state the consistent theme of the death of the dinosaurs happened and that gave the mammals free reign over the earth. If dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds, where did the mammals come from? The protein thing doesn't hold up very well, because they couldn't have come from the reptiles or amphibians, the dna structures don't line up.

In short what you gave was speculation, not proof. And it is not anything new. I'm not trying to short change you, but I have looked at this. I am no expert by any means, however I studied it in school and tried to find ways that it blended with Christianity. I even had a pretty cool theory worked out about how God used evolution to slowly create things and the Big Bang theory and all that fit in really well. When I started really evaluating what facts were there, evolution started looking more like a science fiction movie.

I just have seen no proof. And what you have presented are still only theories and guesses, even though you use the word "Prove" or "Proof".It may have occured, but evolutionary scientists have been looking for a long time and only discovered other species that at one time walked this earth. Then made guesses about how they might have all come from the same ancestor.

[inkspot]

Please post your evolution comments here, not in the Atheism vs. Christianity thread. thank you!

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

I believe that Evolution and Chrstianity cannot exist alongside eachother because the Evolution THEORY, was created to disprove the existence of a creator. (God)

if you are really trying to find out the truth I suggest looking up Answers in Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/#section-4

link^

they are the largest organization I know of that supports Literal Creation.

[chuam8919]

3) You have to know that evolution is well accepted among scientists....so accepted that people that think....even think that's not true can not be defined as a "scientist". This is because we know that there are many parts and many things to explain and to solve and all we have to work to improve the theory but that are so huge proves against creationism that is impossible even for a student not to consider them! Creationism is not a theory is pure imagination because you can not prove in any way...even with well accepted supposition and theories! There are some proves which cannot be ignored!Could I ask you a question? How do I know, with empirical evidence, that you actually have a brain? I can't see it. Should I say you have one? Where's the evidence that you do have one? If you point to brains taken out of peoples' skulls in the past, that still does not answer the question. We would be talking about you. How do we know that you have a brain? Unless we actually cut open your skull and see your brain, then we know with empirical evidence that you actually do have a brain. If that is not done, it can easily be your pure imagination that you actually do have one.

I also believe that God's is the force behind evolution and that he directed it...but i cannot accept a theory that has no proves, like creationism!God was not behind evolution. I know this by the simple fact that the Bible says water came to be before light. Evolution of the Cosmos essentially says that heat and light came before other elements were laid out over time.

I'm sorry...i don't want to be offensive in any way...i only suggest you to read, if you like, something about evolution and try to think and see that are some signals....than you can believe whatever you want but before (i study the position of the Creationist by myself) try to understand the other side position....perhaps, it 'll be useful.I have read their articles. I subscribe to Science newsletter in America, which is heavily loaded with articles talking about evolution. I have read them and found it to be utter nonsense. In no way is microevolution remotely leading to macroevolution. That's pathetic extrapolation on their part. What they have observed in their experiments was microevolution, but they just had to put in the stuff of millions of years in. It can be interpreted differently in a different applicable way, but they just had to put the useless fluff in. Takes up my reading time. That frustrates me a lot, putting in more of the "millions of years" instead of cutting to the chase and talking about the experiment proper. :mad:

[Aravis Kenobi]

I haven't read this thread completely, so I'll state simply what I believe in: Creationism. Evolution really doesn't have enough evidence to support it, but the Creation does. If you believe in evolution, then fine, that's what you believe. I won't try to change you, so please dont' try to change my POV. Though learning about evolution and what the beliefs are is interesting, creation catches more of my interest. Just studying simple algae has to testify to the fact that we were and the rest of the world was created and imagined by a Supreme Being whose intellect and knowledge is far beyond ours.

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

I once saw a really funny comic of a scientist in a lab working feverishly on something, the caption read.
"As soon as i produce life in this test tube it will prove that no intelligent being was needed in the first place."
Just shows how dumb evolution really is.

[Copperfox]

At the time evolution was first proposed, people thought that a living cell was an ultra-simple dot of a thing, easily synthesized out of a few chemicals that got hit by lightning or something. Only long after evolution had become an entrenched dogma did men come to realize that even the smallest cell is an amazingly complicated factory. It contains mechanisms for nutrition, elimination and reproduction which rival computers for complexity. Not only that, but ALL of these mechanisms have to be in place for the cell to survive at all; it could not start with one mechanism and then evolve the next one a million years later. Interlocking complexity argues for intentional design.

To be sure, scientists continue to CLAIM that evolution is a proven fact; and that includes scientists who do NOT hate God--for the case of Mr. Lewis himself shows that you might believe that evolution happened without it meaning that you are against God. But the reason they cling to it is that they have so much invested in it. Years ago, my now-deceased first wife and I went to the Smithsonian Institute and saw an Imax movie they were playing there, titled "T-REX." It was a fantasy with a girl travelling back in time to meet a "lovable" mother Tyrannosaurus; she also met Darwinist scholars who told her in almost angry tones that evolution was a proven fact. It seemed like a good instance for use of the expression "protesting too much."

[The First Joke]

so since God created everything... can't he have created SCIENCE? evolution is science. God knew it was going to happen. open your minds. there is more proof to support the theory of Evolution than there ever has been. I believe in evolution and I think that God did it. He was behind it all. Even Pope John Paul II said it was okay to believe in Evolution!

[Neevil]

so since God created everything... can't he have created SCIENCE? evolution is science. God knew it was going to happen. open your minds. there is more proof to support the theory of Evolution than there ever has been. I believe in evolution and I think that God did it. He was behind it all. Even Pope John Paul II said it was okay to believe in Evolution!
From what I've read it seems like the opposite. When Darwin came up with his hypothesis, it was based off of sound scientific observation and evidence. But in later years of study, a lot of his assumptions have been discovered to have little, none, or contradictory evidence supporting/not supporting them.

[Copperfox]

It so happens that when I first became a Christian, I was all for theistic evolution myself, and got a lot of Bible-thumpers mad at me for defending it. It all made sense to me, and I had no emotional need to figure otherwise. In fact, I supposed that creationists were the ones with an emotional need--to keep the universe tiny and predictable, with no creatures ever living in it more unusual than circus elephants.

But I began to run into contrary evidence. For example, there was an exposed rock face discovered somewhere, with distinct layers which were firmly stated to be millions of years apart in their successive formation. But then an unbroken fossilized tree was discovered which EXTENDED THROUGH four or more of these layers--an absolute impossibility if they were divided in time as was thought, since the still-exposed part would have rotted away before it could get buried and fossilized with the rest.

So, though I don't get upset at anyone for promoting THEISTIC evolution, I myself am now what they call an "Old Earth creationist."

Joseph Ravitts

[chuam8919]

so since God created everything... can't he have created SCIENCE? evolution is science. God knew it was going to happen. open your minds. there is more proof to support the theory of Evolution than there ever has been. I believe in evolution and I think that God did it. He was behind it all. Even Pope John Paul II said it was okay to believe in Evolution!
Evolution isn't as scientific as many scientists want you to believe. Even now, they're learning more that their "evidence" of transitionary forms has some contradictions to it. In the article here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10275-neanderthal-dna-illuminates-split-with-humans.html), it states that the Neanderthal, which is supposed to be ancestor of homo sapiens and apes, is closer related to chimpanzees than humans. This poses a discrepancy even in their conceptualization of how long it took to evolve. To put it in perspective, if humans are descendants of Neanderthals, then the speed of evolution to transition to homo sapien would have went at an incredibly super-hyper-rate than speculated before if the scientists were to stick to their "millions of years of evolution".

And since we know they're sticking to their "time frame", this then leads to an even bigger problem for them. Even if the rate evolution was that fast, they don't know what would cause the rapid evolution to suddenly decelerate tremendously. Another article talking about the rapidity of human brain evolution is found here. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10275-neanderthal-dna-illuminates-split-with-humans.html)

Please don't say it's science. It's really an insult to the real scientists back in the old days. They took new information they found and changed their theories, even if sometimes completely different, to fit in the new information. The evolutionist scientists haven't done that yet. They've altered it a bit, but they have been purposely avoiding the controversial stuff like the fossilized trees extending through multiple layers of "geologically time-wise different" rock.

[The First Joke]

evolution scientists haven't done it yet... but i appreciate the debate (if i can call it that). i think evolution is true and you don't. we're both Christians, and I think a different way than you do, but you write so eloquently it makes it harder for me to write my sloppy response.
anyway, i think that evolution beliefs should be fit to the person and where they are in life.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
Evolution doesn't mix with the bible. Sir Arthur Keith, the foremost evolutionist of his time and he also wrote the foward to darwin's book, said that they are at war. As hitler said there is a free World and a Slave World one must break asunder.

[The First Joke]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
Evolution doesn't mix with the bible. Sir Arthur Keith, the foremost evolutionist of his time and he also wrote the foward to darwin's book, said that they are at war. As hitler said there is a free World and a Slave World one must break asunder.

as a catholic, my understanding is that some of the Bible is exaggerated and some of it's poetry or other literature. if God created everything in six days, well... the dinosaurs have some problems. Dionsaurs were around for years and years and years and we have bones and research to prove it to us, so how could dinosaurs and humans exist at the same time? we'd get eaten. fast. also, the jewish word for days is yom, meaning literally units of time. Genesis was written in hebrew so we only have yoms to gage creation. it could have happened in six seconds, six minutes, six months, six years... we can ask God when we all get to heaven.

survival of the fittest also works out in real life- look at humans! especially when it comes to high-demand jobs, people can turn into animals. if that's a bad analogy, someone has to help me out.

ignorance makes me angry. we as Christians cannot ignore science nor can science ignore us. pray about it and see if we can make the two go together.

remember, not all of creation was mentioned in the Bible. What about space? the big-bang theory is gaining more and more evidence to support it. it doesn't say in the Bible who created it!

[inkspot]

If anyone cares to read the posts of Charn Tim earlier in this thread, our resident scientist explains the science of a gradually created earth, and how this fits with Scripture. Although he does not defend the idea of the evolution of species, he does give a good case for an old earth, which I do not see as a conflict with the Bible and the creation story at all.

[Aslan's Son]

If God created everything in six days, well... the dinosaurs have some problems. Dionsaurs were around for years and years and years and we have bones and research to prove it to us, so how could dinosaurs and humans exist at the same time? we'd get eaten.

Actually, not at all. Dinosaurs did indeed live at the same time as man, but in another part of the world. The climate was different from the way it is now--there was like...a haze or something like that around the earth at that time that kept the earth warm and humid. The climate eventual;y changed, and the dinosaurs died out as a result, and man adapted.

Article (http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/dinosaur.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp)

Remember, not all of creation was mentioned in the Bible. What about space? The big-bang theory is gaining more and more evidence to support it. It doesn't say in the Bible who created it!

True, but since the book of Genesis says God created the sun and moon, and that everywhere was darkness, it can be assumed he created space. As I've mentioned before, the idea of evolution nullifies the Biblical idea that God created the universe and everything living within it. If we evolved from monkeys (which I don't believe at all), then that would be saying God didn't make man from the dust as Genesis says. And if this "big bang" theory was true, then that nullifies that God created the earth, moon, and sun as the Bible says.

Article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp)

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

Actually, not at all. Dinosaurs did indeed live at the same time as man, but in another part of the world. The climate was different from the way it is now--there was like...a haze or something like that around the earth at that time that kept the earth warm and humid. The climate eventual;y changed, and the dinosaurs died out as a result, and man adapted.

Article (http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/dinosaur.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp)
Article (http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp)



True, but since the book of Genesis says God created the sun and moon, and that everywhere was darkness, it can be assumed he created space. As I've mentioned before, the idea of evolution nullifies the Biblical idea that God created the universe and everything living within it. If we evolved from monkeys (which I don't believe at all), then that would be saying God didn't make man from the dust as Genesis says. And if this "big bang" theory was true, then that nullifies that God created the earth, moon, and sun as the Bible says.

Article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp)

Ah, you're familier with AIG too. I love their website and especially their Creation magazine. I wish everybody believed in LITERAL Creation.

[inkspot]

Ah, you're familier with AIG too. I love their website and especially their Creation magazine. I wish everybody believed in LITERAL Creation.
If you read through this thread, you will see that the Scriptures do not demand you believe in a literal six-day creation -- there is plenty of room for believing in what science suggests, which is an earth billions of years old. See Charn Tim's posts on the meaning of the word "day" in the Genesis accounts, and its pretty clear. As is the science which argues for an older earth.

The idea of evolution of all life from one single cell, is of course erroneous, but there is nothing in Scripture which demands you believe in a "young earth."

[chuam8919]

as a catholic, my understanding is that some of the Bible is exaggerated and some of it's poetry or other literature. if God created everything in six days, well... the dinosaurs have some problems. Dionsaurs were around for years and years and years and we have bones and research to prove it to us, so how could dinosaurs and humans exist at the same time? we'd get eaten. fast. also, the jewish word for days is yom, meaning literally units of time. Genesis was written in hebrew so we only have yoms to gage creation. it could have happened in six seconds, six minutes, six months, six years... we can ask God when we all get to heaven.That's a fallacious argument, IMO. Just because dinosaurs have sharp teeth, it doesn't mean that they were carnivorous. Heard of Little Tyke? Lioness. Scientists say it's impossible for them to live without meat because of the teeth and their kind eat only meat in the wild. Read here. (http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm)

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Guys, I hate to argue wit hyou guys who think Evolution is right. This world is Young Because (1) The Earth would have a much greater population, (2) Jupiter loses heat twice as fast as it gains it. (3) The earth's magnetic field is Declining, if the world was much older everything would be out of orbit. (4) The First law Of thremodynamics states that Matter can not be created or destroyed, (5) the Second Law of Thremodynamics states that everything tends toward disorder,(6) Charles Darwin was NOt a scientist, (7) The dust on the moon would be in a much greater amount, (8) Ganymede has eruptions on it's surface still, thus making Jupiter young. (9) Solar Collapse is happening too fast for it to be a million years old. (10) Meteors are hitting are planet. so there should be Meteors in the old earth layers, but there isn't, (11) Oil Pressure declines over time. When shouldn't have Gushers, (12) There shouldn't be any mountains or cliffs in the sea due to Erosion, (13)The ocean Sediment should be thicker, (14) Tree rings are to few in number, (15) Astronomical Records show that eclipses are not before 2250 B.C., (16) Coral Growth should cover much more of the ocean. Need I say more? These are rearched by Scientists. Don't Forget Mt. Saint Helens.

I don't mean to attack. I mean to change your thinking from that which is a THEORY. That is all Evolution is. This is a Fact.

[Shadow Hawk]

Ok, let's start at the beginning. what evolution says is the creation of the universe...... Once long ago there was a DOT. and this DOT was made of nothing... thats right nothing!! soon (millions of years) this DOT begain to spin at an incredible rate sooo fast that this Dot of nothing exploded and created the universe. and Billions of years later this nothing became a... Well a fish then it became a toad and then went to a monkey, and finally to a man.
Now i'm am going to show you all reasons that evolution is imposible.

1.) the energy some stars are radiating so ferociously makes their radiation levels adout 100,000 to 1 million times that of our own sun, at this rate they could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.
2.) some of the star clusters in the universe are spining so fast that it would have been imposible for them to stay together very long.
3.) Also comets evolution says that comets have the same age as our planet this poses a problem for evolution because comets are composed of frozen gases, rocks, and ice so when it passes the sun it evaporates.
4.) one more reason is that the moon has been colecting dust since the beginning of time, dust collects on the moon at the of 3 or 4/ 10,000ths of an inch. if the universe was very old the dust on the moon would have built up to 6 miles deep.
5.) other reason is that the sun radiation is flowing outward forcing smaller particles away. if the universe or salor system was billions of years old the sun would have focred all of the smaller particles away, and these smaller pacticles would not exist.

I've got more the 50 different reasons that i could list, but I'll just start with five. and i am not trying to be rude or implite or anything like that.

[inkspot]

I would suggest your going back through this thread and reading some of Charn Tim's posts about the old earth vs. young earth. There is strong scientific evidence that the earth is much older than what "young earth" proponents believe. I do not understand exactly what you are saying, Shadow Hawk, but I sense your beliefs are threatened by the idea of the earth being very ancient and having developed over a period of aeons rather than in one day. But there is actually plenty to suggest that this is so, and that God is still in control. Go back through this thread and see what you think.

[chuam8919]

I would suggest your going back through this thread and reading some of Charn Tim's posts about the old earth vs. young earth. There is strong scientific evidence that the earth is much older than what "young earth" proponents believe. I do not understand exactly what you are saying, Shadow Hawk, but I sense your beliefs are threatened by the idea of the earth being very ancient and having developed over a period of aeons rather than in one day. But there is actually plenty to suggest that this is so, and that God is still in control. Go back through this thread and see what you think.Maybe ask Charn Tim as well to review what I just posted about the evolutionists finding something problematic with the Neanderthal-to-human evolution. :) It would be interesting, since it was evolutionists who found that problem, and not young-earth creationists.

[inkspot]

Alas! I think Tim has left us for his Master's studies!!!
And I am not qualified to speak for him -- I can just refer you to his previous posts.
:)

[The First Joke]

That's a fallacious argument, IMO. Just because dinosaurs have sharp teeth, it doesn't mean that they were carnivorous. Heard of Little Tyke? Lioness. Scientists say it's impossible for them to live without meat because of the teeth and their kind eat only meat in the wild. Read here. (http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm)

im just saying that if we have proof going against evolution, there's also proof to support it. think what you want. but t. rex could eat us with their t. rex arms and t. rex teeth.

[chuam8919]

im just saying that if we have proof going against evolution, there's also proof to support it. think what you want. but t. rex could eat us with their t. rex arms and t. rex teeth.I'm not the one who made the commentary on the lack of connection of neanderthal to homo sapien, nor was I the one who first found out about Little Tyke. These discoveries were made by scientists, who you claim to be largely made-up of evolutionists. I'm merely reiterating the observations they made to you. It's not what I think, it's what these scientists thought. I'm just posting the evolutionists' doubts to you. Again, emphasis on not mine, but evolutionists'.

[The First Joke]

I'm not the one who made the commentary on the lack of connection of neanderthal to homo sapien, nor was I the one who first found out about Little Tyke. These discoveries were made by scientists, who you claim to be largely made-up of evolutionists. I'm merely reiterating the observations they made to you. It's not what I think, it's what these scientists thought. I'm just posting the evolutionists' doubts to you. Again, emphasis on not mine, but evolutionists'.

i'm sharing the non-evolutionists' ideas here. some of this is my opinion, but i think that there are some kinks in both of these theories, but eventually we will all find out what's right and what's wrong. :)

[Shadow Hawk]

First lets not wrap the facts around the theories...okay? It is human nature to believe in something whether it is right or wrong.

[LifeMaiden]

If any of you guys here read TIME, some while ago, there was a long article about a Christian who is also a geneticist and a scientist, and has written a book about the earth, DNA, evolution, and genetics. He believes in I guess what is called...intelligent design. ( I think that's the term).

I personally do not believe that dinosaurs lived here with humans. Homo sapiens was not around 80-100 million years ago. The first dinosaurs appeared during the Paleozoic Era, and died out during the Cretaceous. Man, unless you're talking about monkeys or the various hominoids that appeared in later eras, wasn't around. At least not humans as we know them today.


If you think of the world as a twenty four hour clock, the first twelve hours would have been lifeless, and man appears only a few seconds before midnight. Why do people who believe in creationism can't seem to understand that God has created everything, except in different periods of time? In other words, why does seven days have to be seven days literally, when it could have meant 700 million years?

I can't understand or see why anyone could truly believe the world was created in seven days. I have seen the Bible as symbolically intepreted, and not literal, because I am not a Fundamentalist. Each 'day' could have been 300 million years, rather than a literal 24 hour day. But that's just my OPINION. I have nothing against literal interpretation of the Bible. But for me, I'd like to think there is a way science and Christianity can go hand in hand. Why couldn't God have something to do with the Big Bang? Wouldn't that be saying that God thus created the universe and everything in it? And why can't it be said that there IS a theory called evolution, but that God was the one guiding and nurturing the developments that occur in all the kingdoms of life? That the species Charles Darwin did study in the Galapagos evolved in the gene pool BECAUSE of God, not in spite of Him?

[chuam8919]

If any of you guys here read TIME, some while ago, there was a long article about a Christian who is also a geneticist and a scientist, and has written a book about the earth, DNA, evolution, and genetics. He believes in I guess what is called...intelligent design. ( I think that's the term).

I personally do not believe that dinosaurs lived here with humans. Homo sapiens was not around 80-100 million years ago. The first dinosaurs appeared during the Paleozoic Era, and died out during the Cretaceous. Man, unless you're talking about monkeys or the various hominoids that appeared in later eras, wasn't around. At least not humans as we know them today.


If you think of the world as a twenty four hour clock, the first twelve hours would have been lifeless, and man appears only a few seconds before midnight. Why do people who believe in creationism can't seem to understand that God has created everything, except in different periods of time? In other words, why does seven days have to be seven days literally, when it could have meant 700 million years?

I can't understand or see why anyone could truly believe the world was created in seven days. I have seen the Bible as symbolically intepreted, and not literal, because I am not a Fundamentalist. Each 'day' could have been 300 million years, rather than a literal 24 hour day. But that's just my OPINION. I have nothing against literal interpretation of the Bible. But for me, I'd like to think there is a way science and Christianity can go hand in hand. Why couldn't God have something to do with the Big Bang? Wouldn't that be saying that God thus created the universe and everything in it? And why can't it be said that there IS a theory called evolution, but that God was the one guiding and nurturing the developments that occur in all the kingdoms of life? That the species Charles Darwin did study in the Galapagos evolved in the gene pool BECAUSE of God, not in spite of Him?Therein lies a problem. How did they come up with the time period for the different geographic layers? Another thing that I just thought of. How come there are different types of rocks in different layers? It doesn't really add up with uniformity. As for the fossils, why did they find a homo sapien bone beside a huge camel bone? The camel fossil, when scaled to a modern camel, indicated the camel to be easily two times larger than the modern camel.

Again, by evolutionists. Read the article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6035113.stm)

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

Also you are committed to the belief that God used billions of years of death and destruction to finaly create something he called good?

It does not make sense at all and EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE! IT IS A RELIGION! IT IS A BELEIF SYSTEM NOT TRUTH! It is an unproven THEORY. not proven fact and the simplest layman if he studied the facts of nature could conclude that evolution is groundless it's just a bunch of Atheistic "BIG GUYS" following a WRITER. NOT A SCIENTIST.

On the dinosaurs with man thing. Dragon stories with very similar descriptions to many well known dinosaur species exist in almost all cultures of the Globe. Is it just a coincedence? Or are there really some facts behind the stories? what about the Komodo dragon? if no one had ever seen a living one it would be clasified as a dinosaur. however because they do exist and live today people classify them as large lizards not Dinosaurs.

[Ephinie]

I really like those bumper stickers that say, "I believe in the Big Bang Theory: God said it, and BANG!!! It happened."

Those are great because they could be put on the car of any Christian - from young earth Creationists to all the way to theisitic evolutionists. And the best part is that the statement has such a ring of truth to it.

[LifeMaiden]

Also you are committed to the belief that God used billions of years of death and destruction to finaly create something he called good?

It does not make sense at all and EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE! IT IS A RELIGION! IT IS A BELEIF SYSTEM NOT TRUTH! It is an unproven THEORY. not proven fact and the simplest layman if he studied the facts of nature could conclude that evolution is groundless it's just a bunch of Atheistic "BIG GUYS" following a WRITER. NOT A SCIENTIST.

On the dinosaurs with man thing. Dragon stories with very similar descriptions to many well known dinosaur species exist in almost all cultures of the Globe. Is it just a coincedence? Or are there really some facts behind the stories? what about the Komodo dragon? if no one had ever seen a living one it would be clasified as a dinosaur. however because they do exist and live today people classify them as large lizards not Dinosaurs.


So if that's the case, and so many people believe that God created the world in seven days, then why hasn't that taught in schools IN ADDITION TO EVOLUTION, rather than this so called fake theory you say evolution is about? You're saying that the REAL TRUTH is that the world was created in seven days?


There are many Christians who also do not share your belief that the world was created in seven days. I hate to break it to you. What would you say about Christians who believe in a more open approach to interpretation of what is said in the Bible, rather than a literal interpretation of it? Would you say they were deceived? Not truly Christian because they don't believe the world was created in 'seven days?' Does your truth have to be the truth of all Christians, or just your own Fundamentalist viewpoint?

[LifeMaiden]

Also you are committed to the belief that God used billions of years of death and destruction to finaly create something he called good?

It does not make sense at all and EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE! IT IS A RELIGION! IT IS A BELEIF SYSTEM NOT TRUTH! It is an unproven THEORY. not proven fact and the simplest layman if he studied the facts of nature could conclude that evolution is groundless it's just a bunch of Atheistic "BIG GUYS" following a WRITER. NOT A SCIENTIST.

On the dinosaurs with man thing. Dragon stories with very similar descriptions to many well known dinosaur species exist in almost all cultures of the Globe. Is it just a coincedence? Or are there really some facts behind the stories? what about the Komodo dragon? if no one had ever seen a living one it would be clasified as a dinosaur. however because they do exist and live today people classify them as large lizards not Dinosaurs.


Okay, so you DON'T believe in a scientific theory of evolution, but you believe there may be dragons, a creature that might or might not be mythical. Interesting. Very interesting. And as for your statement about 'atheistic big guys following a writer,' I think you might try taking a look at the TIME magazine article about a very devout Christian man who is ALSO a geneticist and a scientist, and he would beg to differ about being an atheistic ' big guy'. You're so intent on proving everyone else is wrong, even the many Christians who DO believe in a less narrow view of the Biblical creation story that it comes across as almost fanatical. It sounds like what you're saying is a TRUE Christian should believe in a young earth created in six days, but if you don't, then you're damned.



* I keep saying SEVEN days. I mean SIX day creation. God rested on the seventh :D *

[LifeMaiden]

Also you are committed to the belief that God used billions of years of death and destruction to finaly create something he called good?

It does not make sense at all and EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE! IT IS A RELIGION! IT IS A BELEIF SYSTEM NOT TRUTH! It is an unproven THEORY. not proven fact and the simplest layman if he studied the facts of nature could conclude that evolution is groundless it's just a bunch of Atheistic "BIG GUYS" following a WRITER. NOT A SCIENTIST.

On the dinosaurs with man thing. Dragon stories with very similar descriptions to many well known dinosaur species exist in almost all cultures of the Globe. Is it just a coincedence? Or are there really some facts behind the stories? what about the Komodo dragon? if no one had ever seen a living one it would be clasified as a dinosaur. however because they do exist and live today people classify them as large lizards not Dinosaurs.


Where is there anything written about death and destruction in the creation of an earth that eventually became the place in the universe, the only place, where humans and animals and plants live, though not always in harmony?


Evolution is a religion? Really? Interesting also...they taught that religion in my Catholic school...I should have known the Catholics were trying to convert me to another religion ;)

[LifeMaiden]

If you read through this thread, you will see that the Scriptures do not demand you believe in a literal six-day creation -- there is plenty of room for believing in what science suggests, which is an earth billions of years old. See Charn Tim's posts on the meaning of the word "day" in the Genesis accounts, and its pretty clear. As is the science which argues for an older earth.

The idea of evolution of all life from one single cell, is of course erroneous, but there is nothing in Scripture which demands you believe in a "young earth."

There you have it: SCRIPTURE DOES NOT DEMAND THAT YOU BELIEVE IN A LITERAL SIX DAY CREATION. Thank you.

[LifeMaiden]

This is sorta a random thought I had...
The whole idea of "survival of the fittest" doesn't work out in real life. If you looks around in nature, animals don't needlessly harm each other. The just get what they need for food. Also, there are so many mutualistic relationships between different species. More often than not, animals help each other rather than harm each other. Also, us humans make "just" goverments and laws so that every man has equal rights. If the whole "survival of the fittest" thing was true, it would be every man for himself. We wouldn't be trying to protect each other. Another thing, we are always trying to proctect animals and maintain the world. "Save the Whales!" "Protect the Rain Forests" "Stop Global Warming" blah blah... From an evolutionary standpoint, this mindset is hindering evolution from occuring. If Global Warming is happening, then it's probably the way mother nature and the process of evoltion wanted it to happen. We are contradicting the very process that supposedly brought us into existence. This way of thinking just doesn't make sense. Evolution is contradictory.

If I wasn't a Christian and believed in evolution, then I think I'd try to get people to totally go with the whole "evolving" thing. If the whales are becoming extinct, let them! It's the process of evolution! And I'd try to overthrow the goverment and create anarchy. That way, we would be able to really follow evoltuion and the survival of the fittest. It would be every man for himself! Yeah! *caveman grunt* That would be cool! And I would kill off all the other guys so I was the only remaining human! (actually, I'd keep one guy alive, so I could marry him :rolleyes: ) But then me and my husband's children would mutate into a super-human species! Yeah... that would be evolution in action!

(Edit: Obviously, that ^ idea is ridiculous. But if evolution were really true, and was really happening, that would be the mindset we would have. I was just exaggerating... I still think it would be a cool idea though :D )



Survival of the fittest is and was a term that has been overused for decades. It was often used to justify why the rich Robber Barons of the Gilded Age in America could easily step on and over the lower classes, exploiting them for their work value, even the children...whom they considered inferior and too stupid or weak to become successful... and therefore, along with people of color who had darker skin and different ancestries other than the traditional Anglo Saxon race which claimed itself to be superior, to exploit the natural resources of those respective races' countries...Africa to name one of them. That's not necessarily what survival of the fittest means in the animal or plant kingdom outside of humans.


In nature, the strongest do survive. The weak ( diseased, old, or simply born not strong enough) do not. It's clear that when you view animal species, the ones who have the aggression and the strength will outlive the weaker ones. It's sad, but true. An eagle has two babies or three, and the ones who cannot reach out for their mother's feeding are the ones who die...and they get pushed out of the nest, or they get eaten/cannibalized by the strongest one in the nest. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill all the young lion cubs to start a new gene pool with his own genetic line...and as with all animals, those who are diseased, infirm, old, or simply not strong enough will die so the stronger ones can survive, mate, and carry on the species. The weak antelope or the infirm wildebeest will die before the stronger ones do at the hands of predators.

The reason certain species become extinct is not always because humans are killing them off...it's also because of the earth's climate and the way nature works. And yet, we don't like to think about the idea of a certain species becoming extinct because we're killing them off because of encroaching on their wildlife space ( think of the spotted owl...remember the fight between the loggers and environmentalists?). Animals and plants were becoming extinct through the ages long before humans were around. It was their time to go.

[LifeMaiden]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days.
Evolution doesn't mix with the bible. Sir Arthur Keith, the foremost evolutionist of his time and he also wrote the foward to darwin's book, said that they are at war. As hitler said there is a free World and a Slave World one must break asunder.


And what would you say to the Christians, many of them, who don't agree with that six day creation? And you're quoting HITLER? He's not exactly the kind of person I would choose as an example of humanity LOL. A 'free world?' You mean the free world of the Aryan superior race and the slave world of the Jews, the Slavs, and every other race that Hitler considered inferior? So to you, the people who believe in six day creation are part of this 'free world' and those who don't are part of the Slave world? Ridiculous. Especially coming as a quote from the man who killed ten million people he considered not part of his Master Race.

[Son of Adam]

First let me say that I subscribe to a 'young earth' belief. I do not believe in an evolutionary process that took hundreds of millions of years to unfold. The belief that God created the heavens and the earth in a literal 6 day time period is not an aryan or Hitler only belief. He was a megalomaniac. However, Scripture if interpreted literally describes creation as a 6 day event. To allorgize it is an injustice I believe.

That said, it is wrong for Creationists to condemn those believers who believe God used evolution as a means of creation. Some Christians equate believing in evolution as a sin unto death. The belief in evolution has nothing to do with salvation. One is not saved by believing in the fact that creation was a 6 day event. We are saved through the shedding of the blood of Christ alone. His atoning death and resurrection from the dead and declaring that He is Lord of our lives (Romans 10:9) is our only means of salvation, not in the belief in the creation story, the flood story, when the rapture will take place, etc. Those are not doctrines of salvation. They are secondary events or beliefs to salvation.

[LifeMaiden]

Yes, thank you. That's what I think I've been wanting to say, but couldn't say it, because I didn't have the words for it. I don't believe that having to believe in the six day creation means I will be damned, and not be saved...I really doubt that God is going to say, " Hey, you believe in intelligent design? Nope, you're not gonna get through the pearly gates. Bye!"


In other words, belief in evolution or a more literal interpretation of creation matters not for salvation, as you said.

[chuam8919]

I have a question. Based on the Bible and the Bible only, is there any indication otherwise that the six days of creation were not literal? I'm a Bible based Christian who believes that the Bible should be applied to life, and not life to the Bible. Since the Bible is supposed to be a guideline for Christian beliefs. From what I've gathered theistic evolutionists are applying science to the Bible instead of the other way around. LM, do you believe that the Bible should be applied to the things in life?

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

Great posts everyone, I'm sorry for the strong terms I used yesterday. I was tired and you know what, (maybe you don't) but I could have given a little more explanation and less strong emphasis.

I would have to say that christians who do not believe in literal creation are in a dangerous place. I'm not saying that they are not saved, or that they are going to hell for it. I'm just saying it's really making things harder for themselves and other christians while here on earth. What I mean by that is, if you pass off Genesis 1 as poetry or a parable, there is really no reason not to pass off the rest of the Bible as just a good story. And since you have your perfectly "reasonable" evolution to fill in the gaps of your existence you're perfectly fine (according to your beliefs) to just go on and ignore or deny the existence of God. and if you don't somebody else you are teaching or giving an example to will, and I believe you will be responsible for it when you get to heaven.

Evolution is responsible for the rise of Communism, Socialism, Racism (teaching that the black people of Africa and Australia are "half developed" humans that are a throwback to the late ape stage.) I have heard this taught myself, by evolutionists.
The theory of Evolution gives a door to believe in Flawed Science, rather than in a perfect God. I think that it is one of the biggest anti God propaganda schemes ever created and it seems to be working, even on christians.

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

I really like those bumper stickers that say, "I believe in the Big Bang Theory: God said it, and BANG!!! It happened."

Those are great because they could be put on the car of any Christian - from young earth Creationists to all the way to theisitic evolutionists. And the best part is that the statement has such a ring of truth to it.


I really like that too (goes and buys one from AIG). :)

[Reepicheep the Mouse]

Great posts everyone, I'm sorry for the strong terms I used yesterday. I was tired and you know what, (maybe you don't) but I could have given a little more explanation and less strong emphasis.

I would have to say that christians who do not believe in literal creation are in a dangerous place. I'm not saying that they are not saved, or that they are going to hell for it. I'm just saying it's really making things harder for themselves and other christians while here on earth. What I mean by that is, if you pass off Genesis 1 as poetry or a parable, there is really no reason not to pass off the rest of the Bible as just a good story. And since you have your perfectly "reasonable" evolution to fill in the gaps of your existence you're perfectly fine (according to your beliefs) to just go on and ignore or deny the existence of God. and if you don't somebody else you are teaching or giving an example to will, and I believe you will be responsible for it when you get to heaven.

Evolution is responsible for the rise of Communism, Socialism, Racism (teaching that the black people of Africa and Australia are "half developed" humans that are a throwback to the late ape stage.) I have heard this taught myself, by evolutionists.
The theory of Evolution gives a door to believe in Flawed Science, rather than in a perfect God. I think that it is one of the biggest anti God propaganda schemes ever created and it seems to be working, even on christians.


I TOTALLY AND HEARTILY AGREE! couldn't say it better. evolution plainly goes against the basis of Christianity. It replaces God with a "natural occurance."

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

And what would you say to the Christians, many of them, who don't agree with that six day creation? And you're quoting HITLER? He's not exactly the kind of person I would choose as an example of humanity LOL. A 'free world?' You mean the free world of the Aryan superior race and the slave world of the Jews, the Slavs, and every other race that Hitler considered inferior? So to you, the people who believe in six day creation are part of this 'free world' and those who don't are part of the Slave world? Ridiculous. Especially coming as a quote from the man who killed ten million people he considered not part of his Master Race.

No, I don't mean free as in one world race. Sorry if you took it that way. I quote Hitler because he believed Evolution. I believe in Six day Creatrion because Science Proves it. Evolution is based on IFs, and this does not work. Hitler said somethings that are totally true. Like this, "If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, People will believe it." Isn't that True. He is telling you what Evolution is. When he spoke of the Free world he Spoke of the Christian and Democratic World. The Slave World was his world. One had to Break asunder, and we all saw it was his world. Hitler is the Example of Aethistic Belief. We all know Aethism teaches, whether people know it or not, that they are god.

If you don't believe in Six day creation, you won't go to hell because of it. For the wages of sin is death. And Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. None come to the father but through me. You may disagree with Creation, but you won't go to hell. Evolution is Scientifically Proven Wrong. IFs are what could have happened, but did not.

[Shadow Hawk]

the world will never know the time it took the world to be created because the world has been slowing down. but all evidence does point to a "young" earth. that could be from 6000 to 20000 years. it could have been six 24 hour days, now it is 24 hours and some odd minutes. the theories both have flaws if you really look at it. but we don't need to be arguing theories. what we need to be doing is provening simple facts correct do this over and over so that we know what the facts are. then we can think what could have happened, that is what theories are no more. they are guess of what could have happened. :)

[Reepicheep the Mouse]

i personally believe the creation happened in 6 days (and on the seventh day, God rested). however, the Bible does not exactly say one way or the other. it could have happened either way. BUT i definitely do not believe in evolution. like sir benjamin the lion said, evolution is based on IFs. i believe in the creation, not only because science prooves it, but because i believe the Bible. i don't believe there are any errors in the Bible whatsoever.

[LifeMaiden]

Great posts everyone, I'm sorry for the strong terms I used yesterday. I was tired and you know what, (maybe you don't) but I could have given a little more explanation and less strong emphasis.

I would have to say that christians who do not believe in literal creation are in a dangerous place. I'm not saying that they are not saved, or that they are going to hell for it. I'm just saying it's really making things harder for themselves and other christians while here on earth. What I mean by that is, if you pass off Genesis 1 as poetry or a parable, there is really no reason not to pass off the rest of the Bible as just a good story. And since you have your perfectly "reasonable" evolution to fill in the gaps of your existence you're perfectly fine (according to your beliefs) to just go on and ignore or deny the existence of God. and if you don't somebody else you are teaching or giving an example to will, and I believe you will be responsible for it when you get to heaven.

Evolution is responsible for the rise of Communism, Socialism, Racism (teaching that the black people of Africa and Australia are "half developed" humans that are a throwback to the late ape stage.) I have heard this taught myself, by evolutionists.
The theory of Evolution gives a door to believe in Flawed Science, rather than in a perfect God. I think that it is one of the biggest anti God propaganda schemes ever created and it seems to be working, even on christians.


* Holthir Ethelnor...I am curious...we you the member I asked a long time ago to possibly make me a replica of Lucy's dagger? * I forgot which member it was...but then I saw on your profile that you were in swords and such.*




I had hoped that you also, HE, would not take my posts as heatedly as I came across. A very influental and highly intelligent member sent me an e mail containing the following, which I found fascinating, based on CS Lewis's viewpoints of evolution.



QUOTE:
For my part, I follow Lewis in that I have no difficulty acknowledging the observable reality of natural selection (what some call "micro-evolution", or the Origin of Varieties.) This is what Darwin documented regarding things like finches in the Galapagos Islands, where different varieties thrived based on where they lived and what they were forced to eat. But Lewis and others distinguished that from "evolutionism", which is clearly an article of faith that even in Darwin's day had no supporting facts, and even flies in the face of facts that have been learned since about things like genetics. I'm more aware than many of this, since in my younger days I was a staunch evolutionist and got into towering arguments with creationists about the matter. I'm more aware than some about which of the evolutionist arguments are based on fact and which are based on bluster.

My departure from the evolutionist position had nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with science. I came to the conclusion that incremental evolution - the Origin of Species - could not stand in light of what had been learned since Darwin's day. I don't have time to unpack it completely in this e-mail, but basically there were three basic points that clinched it for me.

One was the Mutation Problem. Based on everything we know about genetics, the creation of a new species from an old one would require a mutation. Furthermore, it would have to be a beneficial mutation (rare enough) that would not only have to be reproductive (able to be passed on to the next generation - far more rare) but genetically dominant, so that it wouldn't be subsumed back into the general gene pool. The combination of these factors makes even one such mutation almost impossibly rare - and the "evolution" of something such as the ear would require millions of them. Evolutionists just wave their hands of this objection, but never answer it.

The other was the Intermediate Forms problem. Evolutionary dogma presumes things like amphibians evolved into reptiles. That would imply, among other things, that amphibians began laying things like reptilian eggs - though, obviously, not immediately. The reptilian egg would come about slowly and incrementally, one small change at a time. The problem is that nobody can figure out what incremental change to an amphibian egg would have moved it toward a reptilian egg without killing the little amphibian - and choking off that genetic strain. Amphibian eggs must be laid underwater - they die otherwise. Reptilian eggs cannot be laid underwater - they die if they are. Amphibian egg membranes must permit water to pass, because that's how they get oxygen. Reptilian egg membranes must restrict water passage, or they'll dry out. Halfway between - e.g. tougher membranes underwater - wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to that branch of the species. There are thousands of these examples, and the evolutionists just wave their hands past them.

The third main reason was the Irreducible Complexity argument, put forth well by Michael Behe in his seminal work Darwin's Black Box. Arguing from the latest research in microbiology, he makes the point that we've now learned that there are certain biochemical reactions (e.g. blood clotting) that are the result of a series of precise steps, none of which can be left out or the organism is put at an evolutionary disadvantage. Evolutionism presumes that such reactions developed incrementally - for instance, a reaction that takes twenty steps once had a less refined form that may have taken 12 steps, and an even earlier form that might have taken six. But Behe points out that to the limit of our understanding, every one of these reactions requires every step to work at all. (These are very fundamental steps, such as reacting to light, processing carbohydrates, and clotting blood.) His question to the evolutionists has been to ask for them to come up with a simpler form of any one of about 20 processes that they say evolved incrementally - but that form has to perform the function of the more sophisticated form. Behe has been vilified and detracted, but never answered.

All this doesn't mean that I'm a Young Earth Creationist, though. Those who interpret Scripture that way are being unnecessarily literalist, and don't realize how influenced they are by modern scientific thought. If you were to ask, say, St. Augustine or St. Jerome if they thought that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, they would have just looked at you funny and presumed you needed more education. They would explain that the Creation account was explaining a complicated reality using poetic language, and was not intended to be taken that literally. The problem is that there was a group of theologians in the 19th century who took that "poetic language" phrase and reinterpreted it to mean "pretty lies", and that the Creation account was factually false, and meant as a sop to earlier, less sophisticated generations. I do believe that God created the earth, and all therein, but none of us know the particulars. The Genesis account is powerful and symbolic and full of more meaning than the modern mind can comprehend - but that does not mean that it is disbelieving Scripture to understand that the "six days" of Genesis were not intended to represent six 24-hour periods.

As with most things, one who greatly opened my eyes to the underlying reality here was C.S. Lewis. In many places, but particularly in his essay The Funeral of a Great Myth, found in Christian Reflections, he points out that the intellectual and cultural environment which welcomed evolutionism nearly had to have something to grasp, so they grasped Darwin's theory and turned it into a powerful cultural myth. They never allowed it to be treated as a scientific theory should be: tested against facts, subjected to proper criticism, evaluated in the light of other knowledge. Even in Lewis' day, the scientific facts were already piling up against popular evolutionism, but that made the evolutionists clutch harder and scream louder. Now that the actual science is nearly overwhelming, the uproar is almost deafening. People think it's about facts, or science vs. faith, but Lewis put his finger right on it: the secularists must have evolutionism, because it's foundational to their dogma. if that goes, all matter of other things will tumble. Trust me when I say that I have heard and read evolutionists who are more fervent in their clutching of their faith than any Inquisitor ever was.

That's where most of the discussions come down, and why most are futile. They hack around with arguments and facts, but mostly in the modern, propagandist style - i.e. one only entertains the facts that support your position, and dismiss facts that don't. Only Lewis and a few others bother to look at the presuppositions and underlying assumptions of both parties. That's the most helpful axis.


END QUOTE

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

i personally believe the creation happened in 6 days (and on the seventh day, God rested). however, the Bible does not exactly say one way or the other. it could have happened either way. BUT i definitely do not believe in evolution. like sir benjamin the lion said, evolution is based on IFs. i believe in the creation, not only because science prooves it, but because i believe the Bible. i don't believe there are any errors in the Bible whatsoever.

I like how you put that. But I would have to say the Bible does say quite clearly that God created everything in six days pretty much like that.
basically it says.

"1. In the beggining God created the Heaven and the Earth.
2. And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, "Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That is all I will post at trhis time however the Bible clearly says and the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh day. So that says to me that they were literal days because there is no evening or morning of a thousand years or a million years how ever you put it. :)

[LifeMaiden]

Again, to me, those who intepret the creation of the world in six days are, as my friend's e mail post above indicates, 'unnecessarily literalist. ' It is not necessary for salvation, either.

[Shadow Hawk]

i personally believe the creation happened in 6 days (and on the seventh day, God rested). however, the Bible does not exactly say one way or the other. it could have happened either way. BUT i definitely do not believe in evolution. like sir benjamin the lion said, evolution is based on IFs. i believe in the creation, not only because science prooves it, but because i believe the Bible. i don't believe there are any errors in the Bible whatsoever.

YOU ALL ARE CORRECT! In some ways but for debate there will probably never be an answer until we all get to Heaven and ask GOD himself. But God does not say how much time went By. in the Bible does it not say something about to God ten thousand days is as one? so far everything in the Bible has been correct all to king Solomon's mines.

[Neevil]

Again, to me, those who intepret the creation of the world in six days are, as my friend's e mail post above indicates, 'unnecessarily literalist. ' It is not necessary for salvation, either.
Hmm... right now I am a young earth six day creationist, or whatever you want to call it. But I think there's a fine line between being unnecessarily literalistic, and compromising the truth. I'm still trying to decide which side of the line creation falls on, but right now I think we should hold to the six day creation story. I'll have to crack open my Bible and do some more research on it.

[LifeMaiden]

YOU ALL ARE CORRECT! In some ways but for debate there will probably never be an answer until we all get to Heaven and ask GOD himself. But God does not say how much time went By. in the Bible does it not say something about to God ten thousand days is as one? so far everything in the Bible has been correct all to king Solomon's mines.

I'll be the first one to admit that evolution as a theory has serious flaws. They've never even found fossils that demonstrate the move from one animal species to another. Where's the missing link which supposedly links homo sapiens with the other hominids? That has never been found either. It's convenient, I think, the theory of evolution, to say that " this came from one species, and that from another..." People tend to believe this when its hammered into school books and our heads long enough. It's like the 'theory' of global warming. There is actually evidence refuting some of that theory, which most people DO accept as naturally as they do evolution.


I think what's clear is...by reading what others have to say about theories of creation and evolution...it makes one seriously THINK about what they're been taught in school and by scientists..." Is this right? Should I accept it at face value?" When you go against the grain, you're bound to create controversy.

[Reepicheep the Mouse]

I like how you put that. But I would have to say the Bible does say quite clearly that God created everything in six days pretty much like that.
basically it says.

"1. In the beggining God created the Heaven and the Earth.
2. And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, "Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That is all I will post at trhis time however the Bible clearly says and the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh day. So that says to me that they were literal days because there is no evening or morning of a thousand years or a million years how ever you put it. :)

like i said, i personally believe in the creation taking place in six days. i quite agree with what you say.

[Shadow Hawk]

I'll be the first one to admit that evolution as a theory has serious flaws. They've never even found fossils that demonstrate the move from one animal species to another. Where's the missing link which supposedly links homo sapiens with the other hominids? That has never been found either. It's convenient, I think, the theory of evolution, to say that " this came from one species, and that from another..." People tend to believe this when its hammered into school books and our heads long enough. It's like the 'theory' of global warming. There is actually evidence refuting some of that theory, which most people DO accept as naturally as they do evolution.


I think what's clear is...by reading what others have to say about theories of creation and evolution...it makes one seriously THINK about what they're been taught in school and by scientists..." Is this right? Should I accept it at face value?" When you go against the grain, you're bound to create controversy.

Yep! you betcha it does. evolutionists believe that the missing link is the coelacanth ,mudskipper, and the walking catfish.. Note: this is from wikipedia, in other word this is not in my words!!!!

Mudskippers are members of the subfamily Oxudercinae (tribe: Periophthalmini; Murdy, 1989), within the family Gobiidae (Gobies). While most marine fish live in intertidal habitats, surviving the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or by using tide pools, mudskippers are uniquely adapted to a completely amphibious lifestyle (Graham, 1997). Mudskippers are found only in tropical and subtropical regions, having a geographical distribution that includes all the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic coast of Africa. Mudskippers are very active when out of water, feeding and interacting with one another, for example to defend their territories.
These amphibious fish display a range of behavioural and physiological adaptations. Compared with normal, fully aquatic gobies, these include:
Anatomical and behavioural adaptations that allow them to move effectively on land as well as in the water (Harris, 1961).
The ability to breathe through their skin and also through the lining of the mouth (the mucosa) and throat (the pharynx). This is only possible when the mudskipper is wet, limiting mudskippers to humid habitats and requiring that they keep themselves moist. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous breathing (Graham, 1997).
Digging of deep burrows in soft sediments that allow the fish to thermoregulate (Tytler & Vaughan, 1983); avoid marine predators during the high tide when the fish and burrow are submerged (Sasekumar et al., 1994); and for laying their eggs (Brillet, 1969).

Periophthalmus gracilis (from Malaysia to North Australia)
Even when their burrow is submerged, mudskippers maintain an air pocket inside it, which allows them to breathe in conditions of environmental very low oxygen concentration (Ishimatsu et al., 1998; 2000; Lee et al., 2005).
The diverse and widespread genus Periophthalmus is by far the most diverse genus of mudskipper. Seventeen species are currently recognised (Larson & Takita, 2005). Periophthalmus argentilineatus is one of the most widespread and well known mudskippers. This species can be found in mangrove ecosystems and mudflats of East Africa and Madagascar east through South East Asia to Northern Australia, Southeast China and Southern Japan, up to Samoa and Tonga Islands (Murdy, 1989). It grows to a length of about 6 in (15 cm) and is a carnivorous opportunist feeder. It feeds on small prey such as small crabs and other arthropods (Milward, 1974). Another species, Periophthalmus barbarus, is the only oxudercine goby that inhabits the coastal areas of Western Africa (Murdy, 1989). Both these mudskippers are widely traded as aquarium fish


The walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), also known as the magur or pla duk dam, is a species of airbreathing catfish with the ability to "walk" out of the water and across land. Its "walk" is more like a sort of wriggling motion with snakelike movements, as well as using its pectoral fins as "legs". This fish normally lives in slow-moving and often stagnant waters in ponds, swamps, streams and rivers (Mekong and Chao Phraya basins), flooded rice paddies or temporary pools which may dry up. When this happens, its "walking" skill comes in handy for moving to other sources of water.
Walking catfishes are around 30 cm (a foot or so) in length and has an elongated body shape. This catfish has long-based dorsal and anal fins as well as several pairs of sensory barbels. The skin is scaleless but covered with mucus, which protects the fish when it is out of water.
In the wild, the natural diet of this creature is omnivorous; it feeds on smaller fish, mollusks and other invertebrates as well as detritus and aquatic weeds. It is a voracious eater which consumes food rapidly and this habit makes it a particularly harmful invasive species.
The walking catfish is a native of Southeastern Asia including eastern India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia, Singapore, and Borneo. It was probably introduced into the Philippines. The catfish is a tropical animal and prefers a water temperature in the range of 10 - 28°C.
In the United States it is a nonindigenous invasive species, which is now established in Florida and reported from California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Nevada.
The walking catfish was imported to Florida, reportedly from Thailand, in the early 1960s for the aquarium trade. The first introductions apparently occurred in the mid-1960s when adult fish imported as brood stock escaped, either from a fish farm in northeastern Broward County or from a truck transporting brood fish between Dade and Broward counties. Additional introductions in Florida, supposedly purposeful releases, were made by fish farmers in the Tampa Bay area, Hillsborough County in late 1967 or early 1968, after the state banned the importation and possession of walking catfish. Aquarium releases likely are responsible for introductions in other states. Dill and Cordone (1997) reported that this species has been sold by tropical fish dealers in California for some time.
In Florida, walking catfish are known to have invaded aquaculture farms, entering ponds where these predators prey on fish stocks. In response, fish farmers have had to erect protective fences to protect ponds. Authorities have also created laws that banned possession of Walking 
^ walking catfish….



Coelacanth ('hollow spine' in Greek, coelia (κοιλιά) meaning hollow and acanthos (άκανθος) spine) IPA: [ˈsiːləˌkænθ] is the common name for an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of jawed fish known to date. The coelacanths, which are closely related to lungfishes, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until a live specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938. Since then, they have been found in the Comoros, Sulawesi (Indonesia), Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park in South Africa, and more recently, sister-species in Sulawesi (Indonesia)[1], strikingly increasing the geographical distribution ascribed to this species. (reference for divergence dated on mitochondrial genome
[edit] Biological characteristics

Latimeria chalumnae.
Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail fin divided into three lobes, the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales, which can only be found on extinct fish. Coelacanths also have a special electroreceptive device called a rostral organ in the front of the skull, which probably helps in prey detection.
Coelacanths first appear in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian, about 410 million years ago.[1] Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.
The average weight of the coelacanth is 176 pounds (80 kg) and they can reach up to 6.5 feet (2 m) in length. Scientists believe individual coelacanths may live as long as 100 years. Coelacanths live as deep as 700m (2296.5ft) below sea level.

Coelacanth in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History

This is the only living species known to have a functional intracranial joint, which almost completely separates the front and back halves of the skull internally. Flexure at this joint may aid in the consumption of large prey. Coelacanths are also mucilaginous; their scales release mucus and their bodies continually exude oil. This oil is a laxative, and makes the fish almost inedible unless dried and salted. Their scales are very rough, and are used by the villagers of the Comoros as sandpaper.
Coelacanth eyes are very sensitive, and have a tapetum lucidum. Coelacanths are almost never caught in the daytime or on nights with full moons, due to the sensitivity of their eyes. Coelacanths are opportunistic feeders, hunting cuttlefish, squid, snipe eels, small sharks, and other fish found in their deep reef and volcanic slope habitats. Coelacanths are also known to swim head down, backwards and belly up to locate their prey presumably utilizing its rostral gland. Scientists suspect that one reason this fish has been so successful is that they can slow down their metabolisms at any time, sinking into the less-inhabited depths and minimizing their nutritional requirements in a sort of hibernation mode.

[Son of Adam]

Read the article:

From The Observer News (www.observernews.net)

http://www.observernews.net/artman/publish/article_001814.shtml

Tippin The Scales
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Oct 21, 2006, 10:42

Almost everyone has heard the statement, “complex life forms of today result from evolution. All life began as simple microorganisms, and through millions of years evolved slowly into more complex organisms which eventually led to the first primitive human form.” Does this sound familiar? Of course it does! It is the theory of evolution taken straight from a high school science book. If you went to a public school, chances are that you were taught evolution. But many times school books do not publish this as a theory, but as truth. So long has this claim been perpetuated that many of those in the younger generation dare not challenge it.

However, there has always been a battle of theories accounting, for the origins of life. In the 1920’s it was illegal to teach evolution in public schools. Creationism, which teaches the Biblical account that God created everything including life, had been taught since the institution of American schools. The Supreme Court later declared it lawful to include evolution as an alternative theory. As the years progressed, creationism has been eradicated from virtually all public school texts.

The Conflict
As we are entering a new age of technology, science can now dig deeper, probe further and see more clearly with the use of advanced equipment. One such amazing discovery for instance is the complexity of individual cells.
Once thought to be the simplest building block of life – a sort of blob-like jelly, science has revealed it to be one of the most sophisticated electro-mechanical systems in the universe, incorporating superior design far more advanced and efficient than anything ever made by mankind. Professors have devoted their entire careers to the research of systems within these tiny cells – research that cumulatively uncovers only a slight fraction of the cell’s mystery.

Within the cell, there are thousands of systems that are known as irreducibly complex. This complicated-sounding term simply means that a system is unable to operate its desired function if any piece is missing. A mouse trap is a simple illustration of irreducible complexity. Removing just one piece of the trap – the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar – and the trap wouldn’t work at all. Thousands of other systems in nature are irreducibly complex—and none as simple as our mousetrap example.



Even Darwin himself said in his book, The Origins of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Irreducibly complex systems by definition cannot evolve by numerous small steps because each element must be present at all times. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of components would need to evolve simultaneously for the system to work. Certainly this does not follow Darwin’s theory. If one piece needs years to evolve, the system couldn’t function and therefore wouldn’t be around long enough for it to matter anyway. Something is missing in Darwinian evolution.

The complicated cell, even though it is a major blow to the evolutionary theory, is one of many problems that evolutionists face.

A Growing Concern
Evidentially, many others agree. According to USA today, 400 Ph.D – level scientists recently signed a statement questioning Darwinian evolution. Called the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, it reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This document was signed by professors from distinguished universities such as Yale, Princeton, U.C Berkley, Cambridge, MIT, as well as a Nobel Nominee for Quantum Chemistry and a top researcher at the Smithsonian Institute.

I recently attended a conference at USF called Doctors Who Doubt Darwin which highlighted recent scientific findings conflicting evolution. The event attracted between 3,500 and 4,000 guests and was sponsored by the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity. Interestingly enough, many professors who are on the forefront of scientific research have concluded that random chance could not account for the complexity found in nature.


One speaker illustrated that if we found a laptop computer on a stump in the forest, we would naturally conclude that it was placed there and had not evolved by chance over time. It would be preposterous to assume that all the precise pieces created themselves and assembled by chance into a complex working machine. However, to use this rationale for the intricate systems in nature has been widely accepted for decades.



Intelligent Design
When the physics of Newton and Galileo replaced the incomplete scientific theories of Aristotle, a new science emerged seeking to explain the world through natural laws. In recent years, a new scientific movement known as Intelligent Design (ID) seeks to explain the apparent gaps in Darwin’s theory by viewing life as a product of an intellectual designer instead of a cosmic accident.

Sounds religious? According to the advocators of ID, their motivation is the pursuit of truth by rigidly following the scientific method – objectively following wherever the evidence leads.

Why wouldn’t we want to admit design into science? What’s wrong with explaining something as designed by an intelligent agent?

In our everyday lives, it is absolutely necessary to distinguish accident from design. We demand answers to questions like, Did she fall or was she pushed? Did he die accidentally or was this suicide? Was someone just lucky on the stock market or have inside information? It makes perfect sense to demand an answer to a larger question. Is life an accident— a hiccup of cosmic activity, or was it intentionally designed?

Why All the Fuss?
Critics of Intelligent Design contend that this movement is purely religious since it infers design by an intelligent agent. Its apparent similarity with the Biblical account of creation causes alarm to evolutionists. Faith, according to critics, should be taught at home or church, but not in public schools. Advocates of ID, however, propose that more faith is required to accept claims of nature creating itself accidentally than is needed to accept design by intelligence.

If mounting evidence points contrary to Darwinian evolution, why not include alternative theories in school textbooks? By nature, education should present any plausible theories including all objective facts and allow students to decide the answer for themselves. Indoctrination, on the other hand, presents only one side and prohibits any other alternative for consideration. Why not let the students debate it?

HYPERLINK “http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:Darwin_ape.jpg” \o “Darwins teorier var omstridte, noe denne satiretegningen av Darwin som ape fra 1871 viser.” INCLUDEPICTURE “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Darwin_ape.jpg/300px-Darwin_ape.jpg” \* MERGEFORMATINET

© Copyright 2006 by The Observer News Publications and M&M Printing

[Shadow Hawk]

OOOOOOOO.... i would say you are very opinionated in this subject. but i agree. :D if you really want to blow holes in their theory you beat them over the head with the facts.

[LifeMaiden]

I don't think that we'll ever really agree on this topic. Even Christians are deeply divided about it. But if it isn't necessary for salvation, we shouldn't worry so much about it.

[Shadow Hawk]

I don't think that we'll ever really agree on this topic. Even Christians are deeply divided about it. But if it isn't necessary for salvation, we shouldn't worry so much about it.

most likely not because evolution and creationism are at war. so lets drop the theories and talk about the facts.

[Reepicheep the Mouse]

but i really don't see how a christian can believe evolution. they totally contradict each other.

[chuam8919]

but i really don't see how a christian can believe evolution. they totally contradict each other.I know how you feel, but the point that's trying to come across is that the evidence is what matters. Weighing the evidence. Is the interpretation of the evidence flawed? As for me, I find that science is beginning to understand the ridiculousness of some aspects of evolution. They're doing their best while still keeping their pet doctrine. The big mistake they're making is their arrogance and pride. They may be increasing their knowledge, but their wisdom is degenerate when compared to the earlier minds of science. They think that only one interpretation of evidence will work. Evolution, and that's how it is. They don't have the foresight to broaden their perspectives out of the box. They should know amongst all others that nothing that's observed on earth is completely black and white.

[Shadow Hawk]

i don't believe in evolution!!! i like proving that the Bible is right, and that God is always there. what i was trying to say is that if you really want evolution to fall apart you have to prove facts right, because not everyone will believe something because you say so. sometimes you have to show them facts.

[Ephinie]

Evolution, and that's how it is. They don't have the foresight to broaden their perspectives out of the box. They should know amongst all others that nothing that's observed on earth is completely black and white.Yes, this is an attitude that many evolutionists have. I might add, as well, that many young-earth six-day Creationists have the exact same attitude only from the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

[Shadow Hawk]

so i've noticed............ Hey that's why God made the rainbow. :D

[The First Joke]

God made the rainbow because He felt like it.

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

God made the rainbow because He felt like it.

Actaually He made the rainbow as a promise. :) :)

[The First Joke]

a promise which he felt like making

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

a promise which he felt like making

Right, so we are all three right. :)

[The First Joke]

coole-o :D

[Ephinie]

Is it just me, or did that almost turn into an argument about why God made rainbows? I shudder to think of that...

[~Lava~]

As a Creationist, I feel that the theory of evolution is erroneous and flawed. As a biology major who gets this theory preached as Scientific Law or even Dogma rather than Theory, I tend to get a little annoyed at Evolutionists, because no matter how hard they argue macroevolution just does not stand up to fact (I mean Real facts, not the manufactured stuff that is taught in schools around America.). There are simply too many anomlies for it to be true. To have evolved from a single celled organism to the Highly organinized human (even in the space of millions of years) is absurd. Besides, how did the Primordial slop get their in the first place. The chances for the right chemicals to get together in one place at one time are astronomically small (I do not remember the number, but the number it was up against was so high that to conserve ink he [Dr. Wile in his textbook series Exploring Creation through (Insert Science name)] had to write it in scientific notation). Macroevolution is the part of the theory of Evolution that has no background. On the other hand, there is basis for microevolution which is small changes in families (the scientific classification) such as development of different breeds of dogs.

[~Lava~]

May i also recomend reading Exploring Creation through Biology First edition, Module 9. it Specifically discusses this issue in depth and gives Scientific Evidence.
By the way I also ascribe to six day Creation, because it is what God gives us as the truth through his inspired writers in the text of the Bible. "In the beginning..."
With microevolution, it is not disregarding the Bible as long as you believe that God guided the animals to do His will. I love God's Marvelous Creation and I cannot wait to find out the truth from Him when I die.

[Hothir-Ethelnor]

Is it just me, or did that almost turn into an argument about why God made rainbows? I shudder to think of that...

Not quite. :D we wouldn't have gone that far, would we have?
No, but I think rainbows are awesome!!! :) :)

[The First Joke]

rainbows make me happy!

[~Lava~]

I love rainbows too

[oxford girl]

May i also recomend reading Exploring Creation through Biology First edition, Module 9. it Specifically discusses this issue in depth and gives Scientific Evidence.
By the way I also ascribe to six day Creation, because it is what God gives us as the truth through his inspired writers in the text of the Bible. "In the beginning..."
With microevolution, it is not disregarding the Bible as long as you believe that God guided the animals to do His will. I love God's Marvelous Creation and I cannot wait to find out the truth from Him when I die.

I've done that book, it was realy good, have you guys read It Couldn't Just Happen(I don't remember the author). If you haven't I highly recomend it.

[QA48]

Is it just me, or did that almost turn into an argument about why God made rainbows? I shudder to think of that...
ROTFL! To think we almost came to that lol

[Reepicheep the Mouse]

I've done that book, it was realy good, have you guys read It Couldn't Just Happen(I don't remember the author). If you haven't I highly recomend it.

we have that book, It Couldn't Just Happen. i might try reading it sometime...

[Shadow Hawk]

have ya'll read Panorama of Creation?

[Twilight]

No, I believe that Christians should not follow evolution because it goes against what the Bible says about God creating the world, not random particles gradually forming organisms.

[Shadow Hawk]

You, need to it's very good. and yes, i believe that evolution is completely false.

[~Lava~]

Diddo on Evolutions falsity, I'll see if I can get ahold of that book so that I can read it.

[Elendil]

Why I do not believe in evolution

1. Evolution can not answer my question, "Where did the world come from?"

2. Evolution is not Scientific. The study of Science requires:
A. Something to observe, analyze and record
B. Someone to do the observing, analyzing and recording
C. The ability to repeat this scientific work

3. Evolutionary ideas are not verified by scientific evidence.

4. Evolutionary ideas constantly change and are as varied as the individuals who think them up.

5. Evolution, like Creation, must be accepted by faith. How much better to
put my faith in God!

[Elendil]

I forgot this quote:

What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen-belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith 'unjustified by works.'
-Arthur N. Fields, Australian geologist

[Kahleina]

besides the fact that I refuse to believe that even just my eye was created by chance from a chemical soup or something imploding/exploding/going boom

[Shadow Hawk]

you all have to realize peopel believe in many different types of evolution. some are fairly easy to tear down and others will test your faith in god. But, Throughout your life you and everyone else will, at sometime or another, doubt that he is there. But, most people like me will do our best to prove that he is there.

[inkspot]

When CS Lewis was alive and writing Christian books, Darwin's theory of evolution was very popular, and Lewis accepted the idea of evolution as God's lengthy process of perfecting the human body for the vehicle of consciousness: since a day is as a thousand years to the Lord, it was nothing to Him to take a billion years creating a world and evolving a species. If you look at it that way, it is not such a bad thing.

Of course since Lewis' time, Darwinistic evolution has been shown to be all hollow. It has been politicized -- I just read an article about a good scientist who was not even a Christian, but he allowed a well-researched and critiqued article on "intelligent design" to be published in the magazine he edited for the Smithsonian Institution (I believe that was it) and the other scientists, who are atheists, got so mad, they had him fired! Even though the article was well researched, well written, but a good scientist, and it had been through the proper peer review, there are just some scientists whs are so anti-God, they couldn't stand it!

All the article said was: science has proven that random chance can't result in the results we see in species today, the intelligence of humans, for example, but that the study of our own intelligence proves that when there is a guiding hand moving toward a specific goal, all kinds of exceptional results begin to happen (he used the model of humans developing computers and artificial intelligence, I believe to compare with creation) ... So the theory was: there must have been a guiding hand in evolution. This being the case, Lewis' idea that God used an evolutionary tactic to develop exactly the species he had in mind doesn't seem so crazy.

[~Lava~]

I think that microevolution is real, and that it happens. Macroevolution is total bull(Please excuse the language there is no better way to describe it.).

[Shadow Hawk]

it is true..............