Creation vs. Evolution

[dgp11776]

Here are some links to a guy name Kent Hovind on Creation vs. Evolution.  He is a creationist who believes in a young earth.  Interestingly enough, he has a challenge hanging out there offering $1 million to anyone who will debate him and prove that evolution is true.  I've seen some of the videos of his debates, and they are priceless.  He's a former science teacher who really knows his stuff.  He's a bit wacky when it comes to the government and conspiracy theories, so just avoid that type of stuff if you're so inclined.  Anyway, these are really long audio files, but if anyone is interested, here they are.  I have found them to be well worth my time.

"The Age of the Earth"
http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/videos/seminar1_300k.wmv

"The Garden of Eden"
http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/videos/seminar2_300k.wmv

"Dinosaurs and the Bible"
http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/videos/seminar3_300k.wmv

"Lies in the Textbooks"
http://drdino.activeforjesus.com/videos/seminar4_300k.wmv

[Josh Powell]

Kent Hovind is a nutjob. He conviently forgets evidence and bends what he does remember to fit his theory even though they don't really fit. And when he can't find anything else to bend, he starts making stuff up. Of the YECs (young earth creationists) I respect Ken Ham more.. he's better at not making up stuff

As for creation vs. evolution.. I'm a creationist, but not a Young-Earth creationist. I'm a progressive creationist, which is a form of old-earth creationism. To sum it up, they/we beleive that each of the days of creation were ages of time, and God created each distinct species over that time (i.e. not evolution).. which was about 4.5 billion years, and that the universe was formed by the Big Bang, orchastrated by God. That's a very very dumbed down version though.. to get a better idea of their believes check out GodandScience.org, specifically their progressive creationism overview page. ( http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html )

I'm open to theistic evolution, but they generally deny a literal interpretation of Genesis (which progressive creationists do not).. which I'm not willing to do, at least not right now.

Josh

[dgp11776]

As for creation vs. evolution.. I'm a creationist, but not a Young-Earth creationist. I'm a progressive creationist, which is a form of old-earth creationism. To sum it up, they/we beleive that each of the days of creation were ages of time, and God created each distinct species over that time (i.e. not evolution).. which was about 4.5 billion years, and that the universe was formed by the Big Bang, orchastrated by God. That's a very very dumbed down version though.. to get a better idea of their believes check out GodandScience.org, specifically their progressive creationism overview page. ( http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html )

I'm open to theistic evolution, but they generally deny a literal interpretation of Genesis (which progressive creationists do not).. which I'm not willing to do, at least not right now.

Josh

Under either of the two scenarios mentioned above, was their death before Adam?  There would have to be, otherwise 4.5 billion year old animals would have been crawling around when Adam arrived.  That would be a contradiction of Romans 5:12.

But, anyway, it's kind or ridiculous to just say Kent Hovind is a nutjob.  You can verify the vast majority of his scientific facts through detailed research.

[bloop]

I'm open to theistic evolution, but it's just one of those things that I care less and less the more I think about it.  My significance isn't tied to the method God used to create my species, but that God created me.

As for Hovind, I'm going to have to go with nutjob also.  His offer is disingenuous to say the least, his credentials are lacking (thus his title is misleading), and the whole tax evasion thing doesn't help, either.

[Rachel]

Under either of the two scenarios mentioned above, was their death before Adam?  There would have to be, otherwise 4.5 billion year old animals would have been crawling around when Adam arrived.  That would be a contradiction of Romans 5:12.

I also believe in progressive creationism and the death we would be talking about here is a spiritual death. Death as in we are no longer in communion with God--God no longer "walks in the garden" with us.

Here is something to think about if you think the world was created in six 24 hour days: What about organisms like the mayfly, for example, that only live one day. Logic would have it that by the end of the 7th day (as in before the Fall) they would have physically died.

[Josh]

Here is something to think about if you think the world was created in six 24 hour days: What about organisms like the mayfly, for example, that only live one day. Logic would have it that by the end of the 7th day (as in before the Fall) they would have physically died.

I think that's oversimplifying things a bit. After all, the world pre-flood was quite different than the world post-flood, and there are any number of factors that could have changed after the flood that would have altered the lifespan of these species. So, just because they only live one day NOW, do we really have any evidence that it was this way before the flood? Before the Fall?

[Rachel]

It was just something to think about...

[Vlad!]

I am very skeptical about the entire creation/fall story, as told in Genesis. However, I have come to the realization that, as bloop pointed out, the mechanism God used to create the world does not much matter to me. As far as I'm concerned, God created the world 23 and a half years ago.

[Josh Powell]

I also believe in progressive creationism and the death we would be talking about here is a spiritual death. Death as in we are no longer in communion with God--God no longer "walks in the garden" with us.

Here is something to think about if you think the world was created in six 24 hour days: What about organisms like the mayfly, for example, that only live one day. Logic would have it that by the end of the 7th day (as in before the Fall) they would have physically died.

Woott for another progressive creationist!

@dgp11776:

Throw Kent's name in Google. You'll see some of the many rediculous things he's said. He has literally NO respect from the scientific community, and even among YECs is viewed as causing more harm than good (i.e. making all YECs look like morons).

Yes, there was death before the fall.

Some (admittedly extreme) YECs believe that there was no death at all, including plant death before the fall. I personally think this is ridiculous, for obvious reasons. Their claim is that only parts of plants were eaten, and therefore none actually died. First, there is no evidence to support that. Second, a lot of animals eat in such a way as to uproot plants or what have you while they're eating them. Genesis 1:29-30 says that plants were given for food (but also note that it does NOT say that all animals ate plants). I hope we all could agree there was plant death before the fall.

Most YECs, however, only believe there was no animal death before the fall. Firstly, I don't even believe Romans 5:1 talks about animal death -- it says .. "death spread to all men". It says that through sin, death spread to MEN. Animals don't sin. In addition, if you take the verse in the context of the whole chapter, if it is in deed talking about animal death here in verse 12, the rest of the chapter is talking about Christ's sacrifice for the animals! So in my opinion, as that of Rachel's, is that it was a spiritual death. I don't think that Adam was created an eternal being, nor do I think that the garden of Eden was perfect. Both, I think, are unbiblcal and read-into the Bible. I'll separate these up to make it a little easier to read:

1. Adam immortal/death before the fall.
Alright, Genesis 2:17 reads: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Adam didn't die that day. Some would argue that it was the beginning of mortality, but I don't see any indication of that here. The day you eat the fruit, you die.  That certainty is even emphasized again with the absolute, "you will surely die." He didn't die a physical death that day, and in fact went on to live for 930 years. In addition, how did Adam know what death was if he hadn't already seen it in animals? There isn't any record of him asking God, "What's 'death'?" Also, it should be noted that according to Strong's, the word death used in Genesis 2:17 can mean a literal or figurative death.

As for death before the fall.. we obviously have a lot of carnivores alive today, and a bunch that are extinct. By examining the teeth of carnivores and herbivores, it's pretty obvious to tell which is which. The carnivores are obviously meat eaters. I don't think that you can argue that the 6-inch plus teeth of the Spinosaurus dinosaur were for eating grass. If you look at the naturally herbivorous dinosaurs, such as the Ankylosaurus, you see teeth that are about 1/4 of an inch. Did God create the Spinosaurus a plant eater and then after the fall, continued his creation and changed it, along with hundreds of thousands of other species into plant eaters? I thought God rested from His creation on the seventh day? Such a big change in these animals would have required God to "start up" creation again, something which he stopped after the seventh day.

Scripture DOES say what happened after the fall, and what happened was ONLY that those who sinned were punished. (The women, the man, the serpant) It doesn't say anywhere that God passed judgment upon the innocent, including the animals.

Even the names Adam named a lot of the animals reflected their carniverous nature (note that Adam named the animals before the fall). To quite GodandScience.org:

Before the creation of Eve, God brought the animals before Adam for him to name. The text makes it clear that Adam, and not God, named the animals.9 This is important for an understanding of what Adam had seen prior to the Fall. If the young earth creationists are correct, one would expect the names of the carnivores to reflect the non-carnivorous activities of these creatures prior to the Fall. However, Adam gave some very unusual names to some of the carnivores. For example, the Hebrew name for lion is derived from the Hebrew root that means "in the sense of violence." Was Adam referring to the violence with which the lion ate its vegetables? It doesn't seem likely! In addition, Adam named some of the predatory birds using a Hebrew word with the meaning "bird of prey." Were these birds preying on fruits and nuts? In naming the eagle, Adam used the Hebrew word whose root means "to lacerate." Was the eagle ripping up plants with its talons? Likewise, the Hebrew root for the word "owl" means to "do violence to" or "treat violently." Although it is possible that Adam named the animals in some language other than Hebrew, and that those names were entirely different than the Hebrew ones, there is no biblical evidence for this idea. Even so, if the names were transliterated into Hebrew at a later point, one would assume that they would carry forward their original meanings, or else the Bible would have never made a big deal about Adam giving the animals their names. ... It is abundantly clear from the names given to the carnivores by Adam that he had seen these animals in action - eating other animals prior to the Fall of mankind. The idea that all animals ate only plants prior to the Fall is contradicted directly by the biblical texts.

(if you follow the link you can see a table of various animals, their names, and what their names meant.

2. Eden was perfect.
Find it. You won't. There is NO place in the Bible which God describes Eden as perfect. He describes it as "very good". (note that the same Hebrew used here for very good is also used about figs, and Bathsheba.. among others. How can figs or women be 100% flawless and perfect?)

I am very skeptical about the entire creation/fall story, as told in Genesis. However, I have come to the realization that, as bloop pointed out, the mechanism God used to create the world does not much matter to me. As far as I'm concerned, God created the world 23 and a half years ago.

There's nothing in the story to be skeptical about, really. Just man's interpretation of it. If you would.. would you do me a favor and read up on progressive creationism and let me know what you think? Two good sites about it are www.godandscience.org and www.answersincreation.org. You might also check out some books by Hugh Ross.

My whole "conversion", if you will, to progressive creationism happened only a few months ago when I had a school assignment to research the theory of evolution and creationism and find faults and strengths in the two, and basically give a summary of it. I did so. What I found was shockingly little evidence for creationism, and I was honestly really concerned. The earth looks old. Really old. How can this be? So then luckily for me my next assignment was writing a short paper comparing the different forms of creationism (i.e. young earth, old earth, theistic evolution).. and when I found progressive creationism I was really really intrigued.

(Please pardon any grammatical and spelling errors that I know were made in this post.. I've been out working with my dad all day and then just got back from a three-and-a-half hour worship practice at Church.. so I'm pooped.)

Josh

[Vlad!]

> There's nothing in the story to be skeptical about, really. Just man's interpretation of it.
As a matter of fact, I believe there is plenty in that story to be skeptical about. However, I think you misinterpreted my meaning--what I intend to say is that the literal story, as recorded in Genesis, makes me skeptical. You obviously feel the same way, as progressive creationism reinterprets the story in some key points, primarily that of the length of time over which the events took place.

[dgp11776]

Hmm.  Well, thanks Josh P. and bloop for pointing me towards information on Kent Hovind.  I wish I had looked it up earlier.  I still think some of his scientific information has merit, but he is at least a social nutjob!

[Josh Powell]

> There's nothing in the story to be skeptical about, really. Just man's interpretation of it.
As a matter of fact, I believe there is plenty in that story to be skeptical about. However, I think you misinterpreted my meaning--what I intend to say is that the literal story, as recorded in Genesis, makes me skeptical. You obviously feel the same way, as progressive creationism reinterprets the story in some key points, primarily that of the length of time over which the events took place.

I agree... though it can be argued that progressive creationism is actually a more literal interpretation than Young-earthism... http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html and http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html and that Young Earth Creationism is actually at least partly unbiblical.. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

Josh

[Vlad!]

It can be argued that progressive creationism is a better interpretation, but not more literal. A strictly literal interpretation would say that the earth was created in six actual days. In fact, the phrase 'literal interpretation' is a bit misleading, since in a literal reading no interpretation is involved above the interpretation of the text into concepts that always takes place when reading. Literal means the text is taken at face value (this can be hard when the extra layer of Hebrew -> English is added, considering that the Hebrew word for 'day' is overloaded, but my point still stands).

Whenever anyone starts arguing interpretation, I leave the room. There is no way that, absent any external influence, the correct interpretation of a text can be found in that text itself. Since there are no external texts that decisively settle the matter, and since the matter doesn't really, well, matter anyway, I don't really care about the specifics. None of it changes present reality at all, and there are much better things to devote my mind to.

[Harenil]

I think you are all failing to take into account God is all powerful and can do anything any way He pleases...

Just my $.02

[Vlad!]

Harenil, I think you are failing to actually understand the point of this thread.

[Harenil]

Umm... no I don't think I am... But correct me if I'm wrong, you are all exchanging different views on creation. I'm saying that those people who presented alternate (and theories that possibly contradict the Bible...) are failing to take into account that God can do anything. I don't see meshing God's power with human ideals to be even slightly acceptable. I mean, evolution is enough of a stretch in itself, it seems like combining it with creation, and the fact that God exists, just seems to be trying too hard to fit in with the world, but still keeping the view that God exists. And that just doesn't seem right.

[Brenden]

Umm... no I don't think I am... But correct me if I'm wrong, you are all exchanging different views on creation. I'm saying that those people who presented alternate (and theories that possibly contradict the Bible...) are failing to take into account that God can do anything. I don't see meshing God's power with human ideals to be even slightly acceptable. I mean, evolution is enough of a stretch in itself, it seems like combining it with creation, and the fact that God exists, just seems to be trying too hard to fit in with the world, but still keeping the view that God exists. And that just doesn't seem right.

If God can do whatever He wants, can't He have used evolution? Can't He have used one of the alternate readings?

You seem to be the one limiting God.

[Harenil]

Um no, that's not what I'm saying at all. God could've definitely used evolution. But I think evolution takes just as much faith as believing in God, and I don't see why I'd consider it as a possibilty, especially after studying the science of it (or lack of). God can do whatever he wants, yes, but why evolution? Why is it so hard to accept 7 day creation? God can do anything, right? Sure, he could've used evolution, but I see evolution as more of a way of saying "Look! We found a way it can be WITHOUT God." Not, oh look, we've discovered another possibility, let's try to harmonize it with 7 day creation. And if, you think Genesis's account is wrong, then part of the Bible is wrong, and in my view, you can't take one part of the Bible and say it's true while at the same time say another part isn't.

[Brenden]

Um no, that's not what I'm saying at all. God could've definitely used evolution. But I think evolution takes just as much faith as believing in God, and I don't see why I'd consider it as a possibilty, especially after studying the science of it (or lack of). God can do whatever he wants, yes, but why evolution? Why is it so hard to accept 7 day creation? God can do anything, right? Sure, he could've used evolution, but I see evolution as more of a way of saying "Look! We found a way it can be WITHOUT God." Not, oh look, we've discovered another possibility, let's try to harmonize it with 7 day creation. And if, you think Genesis's account is wrong, then part of the Bible is wrong, and in my view, you can't take one part of the Bible and say it's true while at the same time say another part isn't.

Nobody is saying that Genesis isn't true, just that the common interpretation may be flawed. It's hard for many to accept a 7 day creation because of the evidence for evolution and the lack of sufficient evidence to discount it.

Either way, I'm with Vlad in that I don't consider it important enough to argue about.

[Harenil]

I don't see any evidence for evolution. Nobody has shown me any shred of proof or even anything showing the possibility.

If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then why would God try to deceive us by saying what's not true? Why wouldn't God just say he put things into being and let evolution take it's course?

There's no evidence for evolution, there's no evidence for 7 day creation. But since I believe God is all powerful, I see NO reason to interpret Genesis any differently. I see NO reason to believe in a two hundred year old science created by man, that has nothing to support it. See my reasoning?

Sure, it's not that important. We are all children of God, and all going to the same place when we die, but I must ask, why buy into the manmade science, rather than just accept what is written in the Bible? Why to to mix other views in? Why try to make manmade ideas and make them fit with God? God is God, he can do anything, and I think we seem like fools when we try to justify what God has done in ways man can understand. We can't fathom how God created the world in 7 days, it makes no sense in Human terms. Neither does creating time and space itself. That doesn't mean it can't happen because it doesn't fit in with our human science, which changes all the time.

[Brenden]

I don't see any evidence for evolution. Nobody has shown me any shred of proof or even anything showing the possibility.

If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then why would God try to deceive us by saying what's not true? Why wouldn't God just say he put things into being and let evolution take it's course?

There's no evidence for evolution, there's no evidence for 7 day creation. But since I believe God is all powerful, I see NO reason to interpret Genesis any differently. I see NO reason to believe in a two hundred year old science created by man, that has nothing to support it. See my reasoning?

Sure, it's not that important. We are all children of God, and all going to the same place when we die, but I must ask, why buy into the manmade science, rather than just accept what is written in the Bible? Why to to mix other views in? Why try to make manmade ideas and make them fit with God? God is God, he can do anything, and I think we seem like fools when we try to justify what God has done in ways man can understand. We can't fathom how God created the world in 7 days, it makes no sense in Human terms. Neither does creating time and space itself. That doesn't mean it can't happen because it doesn't fit in with our human science, which changes all the time.

Personally, I think the Genesis account is meant to be poetic, more than a historical document about how the world was made. It is still true, but simply a more poetic way of stating the truth.

You'll notice I don't address creation/evolution, that's because of a few reasons,

1. I am not well-studied enough.
2. Creation can't be proven. It requires the existence of God, and then you'd have to narrow down which god was responsible.
3. Science means, "best guess with current knowledge". This is why theories change, because new knowledge arrives. Science is useful, but I always take it with a grain of salt. Sort of like theology, which often changes.

[Josh Powell]

The problem with creationism is that it really can't be true science, as it isn't falsifiable. It's about like me saying:

Alright, I don't believe in Gravity. It's not in the Bible, therefore God didn't create it and it's been snuck in schools to undermine the Bible, blah blah blah. Instead of gravity, I believe in intelligent falling. That is.. if you throw a ball in the air, God decides if he wants to push that ball back down or let it float off into space. I don't care how many countless experiments have shown gravity to be a constant, or that every time I've thrown a ball into the air so far it's come back down, it's all just showing how consistent God is.

Prove me wrong. And that's about what Young-earth creationists are doing.. they more or less completely ignore any scientific evidence that can't fit in their view. That is, instead of trying to form their view around the evidence.. they're trying to fit the evidence into their view, because their view has ALREADY FORMED and because of their strict interpretation of Genesis, it CAN'T change no matter what evidence that comes up against it. And that's whats so dangerous.

And Harenil.. you seem to think that an old earth somehow makes God less powerful. Bullcrap. Here, I'll be generous, you can have 15 billion years. Can you create just one planet? Let alone a entire galaxies and solar systems? Sure, he could have used 6 days to create the earth. He could have created it in 3 seconds. He could have created the earth three minutes ago along with all our memories and history to make us think we've lived out or lives normally.

It doesn't have anything to do with what he COULD do, its what he DID do.

And though I believe Genesis is true and the inspired word of God, I don't think it was supposed to be a science book. It is accurate, however, but it's not the 'tells all' about creation. If you strictly go by Genesis, God didn't create dinosaurs, or unicellular life, etc. Probably because in Hebrew both dinosaurs and unicellular life would have been very hard to explain, and would have most likely just confused people. It was a story of simplicity, a general overview of His creative works, but not the final say on the matter. (For that, you have to look TO His creative works.)

And again, the Genesis account is accurate to the degree presented, but the word day (hebrew: yom) does NOT always mean a 24 hour day. Just in the first few chapters of Genesis alone it means 12 hour periods, and then later in Genesis 2 or 3 I believe it claims that God created the world in ONE DAY. The word day in the first chapter of Genesis means a long period of time. (And a lot of early church fathers, like a couple hundred A.D., believed the same thing.)

I'm not a scientist, but there are SO many problems with young earth creationism.. it's a wonder that among applicable scientists even 1% believe in it. (That should be an indicator right there.)

I'm not even going to argue for/against evolution, as that's not even what people are arguing most of the time when they claim to be doing so. What they are arguing is for/against an old earth. And that's what I'll be doing now. (I personally don't believe in macroevolution, but I do believe in an old earth.)

If you look at http://godandscience.org/youngearth/ageofuniverse.html you'll see a few of the many many things that would REQUIRE and old earth.

And what about the starlight? We've seen supernovas that were millions of light years away. The YECs say that God created the light from these stars in transit, but if that were so and we're seeing supernovas that happened millions of light years away, and therefore 'before creation', God must have programmed into that light a lie... and we're seeing things that didn't happen. I can't believe that my God is a God of deception.

There's another page on the GodandScience.org site that is a HUGE article all about the evidence for a young earth, or lack thereof. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

In reality, you'll find that virtually no Scientists believe in a young earth. (The only that do are evangelical Christians, and they make up 1-5%) You'll find massive evidence for a really old earth. And eventually you'll find it impossible to interpret the data any other way but the earth was really old, so you create a cop-out and say that God created the earth the look old. (Appearance of age, and yes, it's being actively taught by young-earthers.)

And again, I'm not really tying to argue for evolution here, but you're deceived if you honestly think there is "no evidence" for it. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

And while we're talking about errors in the young-earth view.. don't even get me started on a global flood. Talk about errors and inconstancies..

why buy into the manmade science, rather than just accept what is written in the Bible?

Young-earth creationism is manmade 'science'. Nowhere in the Bible did God say WHEN the earth was created, or specifically how long each of the days of creation were.

Josh

[Harenil]

I think you are kind of missing my entire point. I'm saying I don't see why you seem to think mademade science HAS to apply to God. I'm simply saying, the earth could've easily been created in 7 days by God. If he couldn't do that he wouldn't be God. And I see NO reason to believe anything else. Those arguements like Starlight, they aren't deffinitive.

"Alright, I don't believe in Gravity. It's not in the Bible, therefore God didn't create it and it's been snuck in schools to undermine the Bible, blah blah blah. Instead of gravity, I believe in intelligent falling."
That's not at all what I'm saying, and if you would read my post, you'd understand that.

"Prove me wrong. And that's about what Young-earth creationists are doing.. "
I don't think I have to prove myself right or wrong, that's what YOU have to do, as you have the more radical belief.

"And Harenil.. you seem to think that an old earth somehow makes God less powerful. Bullcrap. Here, I'll be generous, you can have 15 billion years. Can you create just one planet? Let alone a entire galaxies and solar systems? Sure, he could have used 6 days to create the earth. He could have created it in 3 seconds. He could have created the earth three minutes ago along with all our memories and history to make us think we've lived out or lives normally."

Excuse me? Once again, you didn't read my post. Read it again.

"And though I believe Genesis is true and the inspired word of God, I don't think it was supposed to be a science book. It is accurate, however, but it's not the 'tells all' about creation. If you strictly go by Genesis, God didn't create dinosaurs, or unicellular life, etc. Probably because in Hebrew both dinosaurs and unicellular life would have been very hard to explain, and would have most likely just confused people. It was a story of simplicity, a general overview of His creative works, but not the final say on the matter. (For that, you have to look TO His creative works.)"


That's LACK of information because it doesn't serve a purpose in the Bible. It doesn't say Owls were created either does it? In fact, it barely mentions any animals at all. Why? There's no reason to. That doesn't mean he simplified the story (It also doesn't prove he didn't though)

"And again, the Genesis account is accurate to the degree presented, but the word day (hebrew: yom) does NOT always mean a 24 hour day. Just in the first few chapters of Genesis alone it means 12 hour periods, and then later in Genesis 2 or 3 I believe it claims that God created the world in ONE DAY. The word day in the first chapter of Genesis means a long period of time. (And a lot of early church fathers, like a couple hundred A.D., believed the same thing.)"

Nor does the word "day" always mean a 24 hour day. "In my day..." Show me the verse where it says he created it in one day. If you can back up your evidence, then don't say it. There are other verses that show my point, but I don't remember where they are, so I won't use them at the moment.

"it's a wonder that among applicable scientists even 1% believe in it. (That should be an indicator right there.)"
bandwagon....

Please, don't get me wrong, I don't deny the possibilty of an old earth, I just see no reason TO believe it, there's no evidence showing otherwise. Let me show you...

Startlight. Genisis 1...
"Let there be light, and there was light."

Dinosaur bones: God created the earth with a history. Why would he do such a thing? Well, I can't say what God meant, but I think it was neccessary, so that we could see history, so we could see aging, so we can learn more about our creator. It doesn't disprove a young earth. Obviously, when god created the earth, there were trees that were aged, animals that were aged, otherwise it would've been a world a sapplings and puppies. Does that make sense? So then, why couldn't the earth have been created "aged" by our human standards?

I look forward to reading your reply...

[bloops]

That's LACK of information because it doesn't serve a purpose in the Bible. It doesn't say Owls were created either does it?

By being so broad (the birds of the air), it actually does.  Given some interpretations, dinosaurs would be included with the creatures of land and, in some cases, of the sea.  I'm not sure how protists and such would fit into a young earth interpretation of Genesis.

[Harenil]

I don't see a problem with that either. Why doesn't that fit in?

And about owls, I'm saying they weren't specifically mentioned, like dinosaurs.

[T-Bone]

And what about the starlight? We've seen supernovas that were millions of light years away. The YECs say that God created the light from these stars in transit, but if that were so and we're seeing supernovas that happened millions of light years away, and therefore 'before creation', God must have programmed into that light a lie... and we're seeing things that didn't happen. I can't believe that my God is a God of deception.

I don't know exactly where I stand on the new earth vs. young earth arguement, but I read somewhere that the speed of light has slowed down considerably from what it was even a few thousand years ago (entropy and all that) so if the earth was say, 100,000 years old, light that used to travel at near infinte velocity could have easily reached us from what is now millions of light years away.  (And I am not saying your arguements are not valid, I just wanted to mention this since my friend and I were debating it recently). 

[bloop]

I don't see a problem with that either. Why doesn't that fit in?

Somehow, I doubt people at the dawn of civilization would care (or know) about single-celled organisms, so I'm not sure they'd fit any of the categories in a completely literal interpretation.

[Josh Powell]

Nor does the word "day" always mean a 24 hour day. "In my day..." Show me the verse where it says he created it in one day. If you can back up your evidence, then don't say it. There are other verses that show my point, but I don't remember where they are, so I won't use them at the moment.

Sure. I can back it up, I just didn't remember the verse off-hand. It's Genesis 2:4 -- "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

T-Bone, I honestly don't know very much about the scientific aspect of it all, but as far as I've known the speed of light decreasing theory has been all but completely debunked. http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html As far as we can measure, it's very very very constant. And even if it was decreasing, I doubt it'd be the millions of times slower needed to see the startlight from distant galaxies in a mere 6,000 years. I could be wrong about this though, so please do look it up yourself.

Josh

[Harenil]

Ahh.. now THERE'S where it looked like it can be interpreted the other way like you were saying. "Back in the day when I was in Highschool...).

[Josh Powell]

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Each of those verses use the exact same word, yom, that is translated day in Genesis.

[Harenil]

I know it can mean multiple things. But so can our word for day(day), what's your point?

How about this, tell me what you believe and why.

I believe the earth was created with a history (possibly billions of years.), but I DON'T believe it was created billions of years ago, and I don't believe it took longer than 6 days for God to create it. I believe that because of the fossil record and such, showing that those fossils were in all likelihood there for more than 10k years. I can't see evolution fitting into the Bible in any way, so I don't believe that, nor have I STILL SEEN ANY REAL PROOF OF IT. That link you showed me? I see a bunch of attempts to prove the vague possibility of evolution, not proving it exists or is even likely it exists.

[Josh Powell]

Alright, I believe:

God created the earth as told in Genesis, over a period of about 4.5 billions years. (each day is a period of millions of years, and some or all of the days overlap slightly) He created each species separate - they didn't evolve from another species. Since humans were the last thing God created, they've only been on this planet for about 8,000-10,000 years. Other things I believe that differ from young-earthism is that Noah's Flood was local, and that Adam was not an immortal being and would have died even without eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The death God talked about as a result of that was a spiritual death, not physical. 

The reason I believe this is that not only do I believe it is more biblical, it also lines up almost exactly with God's actions as revealed through nature, i.e. science. Instead of having entire organizations trying to twist and disprove scientific observations, I have something that can be "clearly seen". (Romans 1:20)


Many rocks have been dated at 3.5-3.9 billion years old, with minerals contained in them that date back to 4.1 and 4.2 billion years. (Measured by several radiometric dating methods) There are many radioactive isotopes that have long enough half-lives to have survived since the beginning of the earth.


Since you seem so set on saying that there is evidence for a young earth, could I see some? I've yet to see any hard evidence for a young earth, because YECs mainly just attack the old earth position instead of trying to prove their own. The majority of their arguments for a young earth are based from one side of an equilibrium -- i.e. the oceans aren't salty enough to be billions of years old. What they forget/ignore is that there is virtually always another side to the equilibrium.. and in this case the amount of salt going into the ocean and also coming out of the ocean is close enough to keep it at a fairly constant rate. To quote GodandScience.org, "Most processes on Earth are in a state of balance, in which one process (such as erosion of the continents) is counteracted by others (such as emplacement of new continental material by volcanoes and tectonic uplift). Generally, processes on Earth do not build up without limit, because there is always another process that opposes the build-up, leading to the establishment of equilibrium."

Josh

[Vlad!]

Regarding the speed-of-light problem, I see that as a non-issue. There is no reason why God could also not create light as well as the things that produce the light.

Additionally, a theory has been proposed suggesting that the universe was created via a 'white hole', from which the created matter spread out (as in, the opposite of a black hole). How this is different from the 'singularity' of the big bang theory I'm not sure. Anyway, in this case the light from the stars would be extruded (essentially) along the event horizon, and thus we would see starlight even if the age of the earth does not reflect this.

I'm not necessarily arguing for a young earth. I'm just saying that you're arguing metaphysics. To then introduce physics into your arguments seems fallacious, since the topic at hand is something that cannot be clearly explained by physics alone.

[Harenil]

Ok.

I'm young earth with old age. If that makes sense. Think about this. Obviously even the strictest 6 day creationist have to believe the earth was created with a history. Otherwise, it would have been a world of baby animals, unable to survive, saplings and seedlings. Make sense? So going from there, the earth would have to have a history of AT LEAST a few years in order for trees to bear fruit and animals to do anything. Adam was a functioning adult as far as we know, so let's set the earth's history AT THE TIME OF its creation at 18 years old. That's going strictly by what the bible says. Ok, now let's read into it a bit more. God obviously had the power to creat things later in their life. Adam was not a baby, nor were any of the animals or plants he created. So we can agree that if it were created in 6 days, The earth HAD to have had a history behind it. That is, a history that never took place, yet still a history. Day six, THE VERY BEGINNING OF TIME AS WE KNOW IT, the 18 year old Adam is created. See my point? 1 day old, yet physically many years old. God can create something with age. Now let's expand out. I've established that the plants, animals and humans were created with an age, as according to the Bible. So, can't we obviously assume that the earth, and it's nonorganic components had an age when they were created? I think the Garden of Eden, the most beautiful garden ever would've been pretty bland filled with non weathered rocks, dont' you think? Same goes for saplings that could be crushed under foot. Those would take years to grow into trees. I think the earth was created with a billion (or whatever...) year old history, yet that never really happened, because God called THAT FORM into being for several reasons. 1. so that humans could see how things work, 2. because the earth would have been a boring, ugly, empty place, and 3. because he could. Obviously, it takes many millions years for stars to form, yet God created them in an instant. So there are stars that we can observe, and supernovas that we can see so that we can better understand the power of our creator.

Does all this make sense? Is my logic flawed? It seems my view falls in perfectly with the Bible, without trying to interpret it to fit with science. Mine FITS with science just fine. Well not evolution, but that's not even a true science. The mathematics of evolution is ridiculous, and any evolutionist presenting their calculations in math class would be laughed out by any sensible teacher.

Oh forgot one thing... dinosaur bones. It says God created animals AFTER the earth, so how could there be dinosaur bones barried millions of years down in the earth? Well, I think the answer to that is easy as well. We can now observe preserved fossils, and understand the past more, and I believe God wanted humans to know what an amazing world he created. It just seems stupid to created a world, and have a species die out before humans (the whole point of the creation) could see them. And if you want to say they died out because of weather and climate, well, then that would mean God didn't know that beforehand.

Does this make sense? I certainly think it does...

[bloop]

The mathematics of evolution is ridiculous, and any evolutionist presenting their calculations in math class would be laughed out by any sensible teacher.

In terms of statistics, I'm not sure it's been successfully quantified.  It seems that people just like to throw numbers out there with little solid support.  I'm a math teacher, so show your work.

[Harenil]

I'm saying there is no real math in evolution, so I can't really show my work.

And obviously there's no math for creation, the reason, I think being you can't define a work of God with mathematics, if you could then he really wouldn't be God would he?

[bloop]

So, you were being entirely rhetorical?  I don't understand what you meant, other than evolution doesn't have much backing in mathematics.  I wouldn't argue with you there, but I would say that's fine for the ideas of science to have still-unknown mathematical support.

[Harenil]

pretty much... I guess I wasn't clear.

[leinad]

If anyone's interested, there's someone on Coast to Coast AM tonight promoting the idea that dinosaurs co-existed with humans (and from that I would surmise he is a young-earth creationist.)

[murlough23]

God created the earth as told in Genesis, over a period of about 4.5 billions years. (each day is a period of millions of years, and some or all of the days overlap slightly) He created each species separate - they didn't evolve from another species. Since humans were the last thing God created, they've only been on this planet for about 8,000-10,000 years. Other things I believe that differ from young-earthism is that Noah's Flood was local, and that Adam was not an immortal being and would have died even without eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The death God talked about as a result of that was a spiritual death, not physical. 

The reason I believe this is that not only do I believe it is more biblical, it also lines up almost exactly with God's actions as revealed through nature, i.e. science. Instead of having entire organizations trying to twist and disprove scientific observations, I have something that can be "clearly seen". (Romans 1:20)

Many rocks have been dated at 3.5-3.9 billion years old, with minerals contained in them that date back to 4.1 and 4.2 billion years. (Measured by several radiometric dating methods) There are many radioactive isotopes that have long enough half-lives to have survived since the beginning of the earth.

I'm coming into this discussion a bit late, so please forgive the thread bump, but I had to play Devil's Advocate here. I'm generally fine with all of the above. However, what would you say to the possibility that our scientific methods of dating might be flawed? Not sure who one would go about proving or disproving that. But since the Bible seems to indicate that people lived a lot longer back in the days before the flood, could it also be true that signs of aging in the natural world also appeared to be a lot different back then than they do now?

I admit that this doesn't make a lot of sense because things/people would have had to appear (by our modern system of dating, anyway) to age much more quickly than they really did, rather than living a lot longer than we would currently expect. So don't take any of this to be an attempt at disproving your beliefs on the subject; it's a very weak argument on my part. I just want to see how you'd respond to such questions regarding whether scientific attempts to date things are fully trustworthy. If not, it would bring up the question of why God would create a world that appeared to be much older than it really was, but at the same time, it may not be God's fault that humans took the evidence to mean something that it didn't actually mean. Just because trees, for example, get one ring per year (roughly speaking) now may not mean that you could tell a tree's age that way back when trees first grew on the Earth.

NP: "Fragile", Phil Joel