Creation OR Evolution

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Quemtal
Student
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: Australia

Creation OR Evolution

Post #1

Post by Quemtal »

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #11

Post by YEC »

jwu: I believe in a literal Jesus but not in literal Genesis...am i not a Christian?
Whether you believe in a literal Genesis or not is not the determining factor if one is a christian or not.

The following verse sums it up pretty well:
JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice it doesNOT say:
JOH 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him and a literal Genesis shall not perish but have eternal life.

Still one wonders why one would not believe in a literal six day creation?
The Ten Commandments confirm it.
My first post in this thread...5th one from the top..also ask a question as to how one could believe in the "scientifically impossible" resurrection of a dead man on day number 3...then deny the ..."scientifically impossible" work that He performed as described in the Genesis account.
Heck, even the early christians believed in the resurrection as well as the literal six day creation with Adam being formed from the dust....why don't you?

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #12

Post by YEC »

Jose: But, he told us a long time ago. People didn't know about chemistry or cells or DNA. So, he had to tell the story in terms they'd understand, and that would make sense to them. He would have expected us to figure out, later, that the stories were aimed at the people he talked to, and that we should keep up-to-date on our interpretation.
Then why not simply say that on the six day the Lord God formed Adam from other animals?

Could they have not understood that?

Why did he say that Adam was formed from the dust THEN Eve from his rib?
Why tell and let his followers believe in something false such as special creation?

Basically, if God used evolution....why not say so?

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #13

Post by YEC »

Jose:
Why do I not follow the teachings of the latter group? Well, for one, because that particular interpretation is presented to me by humans, who claim that they know what God meant. Why doesn't anyone else know? Or, more precisely, why do so many other flavors of Christians, who have different interpretations, claim that their particular version is really God's Word? Does anyone really know? Does anyone really have a hotline to God, so He can tell them what each verse really means? It doesn't seem like it.
So instead I should listen to similar men who think they have it all figured out because of a particular interpretation of the geological column????

Or a story of how some silica-rich clay turned into little greasy bits...then began to eat each other????

Does anyone have a hotline to the past so we can watch evolution? Perhaps a time machine? (just don't set it past 6,000 years)

User avatar
bdbthinker
Student
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:50 am
Location: indiana

Post #14

Post by bdbthinker »

YEC wrote:
Jose:
Why do I not follow the teachings of the latter group? Well, for one, because that particular interpretation is presented to me by humans, who claim that they know what God meant. Why doesn't anyone else know? Or, more precisely, why do so many other flavors of Christians, who have different interpretations, claim that their particular version is really God's Word? Does anyone really know? Does anyone really have a hotline to God, so He can tell them what each verse really means? It doesn't seem like it.
So instead I should listen to similar men who think they have it all figured out because of a particular interpretation of the geological column????
scientist use evidence, creationism requires faith. It's not the role of science to provide you with absolute truth/knowledge.
Or a story of how some silica-rich clay turned into little greasy bits...then began to eat each other????
?
Does anyone have a hotline to the past so we can watch evolution? Perhaps a time machine? (just don't set it past 6,000 years)
What are you implying here? I thought you accepted evolution. :-k
If you don't set the time machine to earlier than 6,000 years, you won't see much. ;)
Image

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #15

Post by Jose »

YEC wrote:Then why not simply say that on the six day the Lord God formed Adam from other animals?

Could they have not understood that?

Why did he say that Adam was formed from the dust THEN Eve from his rib?
Why tell and let his followers believe in something false such as special creation?
Excellent questions. I guess the answer has to be that we cannot fathom God's intentions. They might have been able to understand a wide variety of other stories. But, as it is with the results of evolution, the results of biblical history are that we have what we have. Speculation on why it didn't come out differently is fun, but ultimately not very productive.
YEC wrote:So instead I should listen to similar men who think they have it all figured out because of a particular interpretation of the geological column????

Or a story of how some silica-rich clay turned into little greasy bits...then began to eat each other????

Does anyone have a hotline to the past so we can watch evolution? Perhaps a time machine? (just don't set it past 6,000 years)
More good questions. The short answer is no, you should not listen to men who think they have it all figured out, because such men are guaranteed to be fools. It is one of the fundamental assumptions of science that we don't have it all figured out. However, we do have a lot of data--which we could say that God gave us by presenting us with his Creation--which we try to understand.

I'm disappointed that you didn't like the part about the greasy bits. I thought it was kinda cute. :(

Now, the difference between science and religion is that with science, we can collect data and from it, infer what happened in the past to give rise to the present. In religion, we simply accept the word of some Authority that It Is So. Relgion's a whole lot easier, because it doesn't make your head hurt. You just have to be willing to follow without question.
Panza llena, corazon contento

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #16

Post by YEC »

bdbthinker;
scientist use evidence, creationism requires faith. It's not the role of science to provide you with absolute truth/knowledge.
Your suggestion that creation SCIENTIST don't use science is kinda funny.

Then again...sounds like you need a bit of faith to believe in evolution.
Did you ever WITNESS an animal mutate to the point that it is now a member of a different genera...or perhaps one mutate to a point that it now has a new body part, appendage or organ? didn't think so

Can you duplicate it in a laboratory?

In fact evolutionism is a religion.

User avatar
YEC
Sage
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:44 pm

Post #17

Post by YEC »

Jose:
More good questions. The short answer is no, you should not listen to men who think they have it all figured out, because such men are guaranteed to be fools. It is one of the fundamental assumptions of science that we don't have it all figured out. However, we do have a lot of data--which we could say that God gave us by presenting us with his Creation--which we try to understand
Good point jose...smart guys have seen evidence that points at Genesis.
Evidence such as radiometric halo and recumbent curves. The Young Earth Creationist have a LOT of data.....don't even think for one moment that your evo-camp corners the market on this issue.

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #18

Post by Jose »

YEC wrote:Good point jose...smart guys have seen evidence that points at Genesis.
Evidence such as radiometric halo and recumbent curves. The Young Earth Creationist have a LOT of data.....don't even think for one moment that your evo-camp corners the market on this issue.
Yes, there is evidence that points at Genesis. It's interesting to compare it with additional evidence that argues the other way.

I'm glad you brought up the halos. Again, we have a thread ready-made for you to help us evaluate the validity of the data, the Polonium Haloes thread. No one is claiming that evos are the only ones with data...what we'd ask of you is that you help us evaluate the data that exist. What's your wisdom on the haloes?
Panza llena, corazon contento

User avatar
bdbthinker
Student
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:50 am
Location: indiana

Post #19

Post by bdbthinker »

YEC wrote:
bdbthinker;
scientist use evidence, creationism requires faith. It's not the role of science to provide you with absolute truth/knowledge.
Your suggestion that creation SCIENTIST don't use science is kinda funny.
Nice semantic argument. Creation science is an oxymoron. :roll:
Then again...sounds like you need a bit of faith to believe in evolution.
No, evolution does not require the kind of faith I'm sure you're implying.
Did you ever WITNESS an animal mutate to the point that it is now a member of a different genera...or perhaps one mutate to a point that it now has a new body part, appendage or organ? didn't think so
Wow...kind of a limited view you have there on science. I'm not suprised. I'm sure someone has explained to you how this argument is absurd. Bringing this up only shows intellectual dishonesty.
In fact evolutionism is a religion.
No, sorry, try again #-o
Image

User avatar
bdbthinker
Student
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:50 am
Location: indiana

Post #20

Post by bdbthinker »

Jose wrote:
YEC wrote:Good point jose...smart guys have seen evidence that points at Genesis.
Evidence such as radiometric halo and recumbent curves. The Young Earth Creationist have a LOT of data.....don't even think for one moment that your evo-camp corners the market on this issue.
Yes, there is evidence that points at Genesis.
I'm not aware of any evidence that points to Genesis at all. Are we talking the creation story , adam and eve, garden of eden?
Image

Post Reply