Do you believe in Creationism or Evolutionism?

BobRyan said:

Definition of CREATIONISM
"Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis "

For the sake of this thread - the way the Bible describes creationism in Genesis 1:3-2:4 is that in 6 evenings-and-mornings God created
the Sun
the moon,
our atmosphere,
and all life on Earth with man and all land animals created in a single "evening and morning" day 6.

So then clearly that belief in creationism is not also belief in evolutionism by any stretch and no text on evolution defines it as stated in the creationist text... "The Bible".

Since this is the "Creationism" forum ... so my question is ... do we actually have any creationists posting here - where the term is defined by that Bible definition?

(I am posting this thread because it is starting to look like there are very few if any actual creationists posting here in this forum ... as in "not a believer in evolutionism" ... is it all just evolutionists here?)

Click to expand...

Count me as a converted evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, progressive creationist, to accepting Gods Word that He spoke it all into existence in 6 24 hour days! That includes the angels as well!

nolidad said:

Count me as a converted evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, progressive creationist, to accepting Gods Word that He spoke it all into existence in 6 24 hour days! That includes the angels as well!

Click to expand...

I have listened to those who propose a Gap Theory, and or Day Age Theory and it is a stretch beyond what the text says plainly. The thing is that truth has to be confirmed by two or more witnesses. I have not found any good cross references for any of these other theories. Sure, I have heard others try to offer cross references for them, but they were not convincing in my view. Psalms 104:1-4 gives us the first three days of creation (verse 5 is the global flood), and it implies that angels were created on day two. Most of the secular world, Muslims, liberal Christians, and Catholics are for an Old Earth. Jesus' lineage can be traced via by Mary's line in Luke 3. Jesus referred to the beginning and referenced Adam and Eve. This all suggests a young Earth. But the most important thing of the Bible is not the age of the Earth, but it is Jesus Christ, and in having salvation in Him. It grieves my soul to see ministries focused on Young Earth creationism or Old Earth Creationism. That is not what the Bible is about. Yes, we can discuss such a truth, but I believe that should not be the focus of any ministry. The gospel is what needs to go out and not Young Earth Creationism, or Old Earth Creationism. Holding to either view does not save.

Bible Highlighter said:

I have listened to those who propose a Gap Theory, and or Day Age Theory and it is a stretch beyond what the text says plainly. The thing is that truth has to be confirmed by two or more witnesses. I have not found any good cross references for any of these other theories. Sure, I have heard others try to offer cross references for them, but they were not convincing in my view. Psalms 104:1-4 gives us the first three days of creation (verse 5 is the global flood), and it implies that angels were created on day two. Most of the secular world, Muslims, liberal Christians, and Catholics are for an Old Earth. Jesus' lineage can be traced via by Mary's line in Luke 3. Jesus referred to the beginning and referenced Adam and Eve. This all suggests a young Earth. But the most important thing of the Bible is not the age of the Earth, but it is Jesus Christ, and in having salvation in Him. It grieves my soul to see ministries focused on Young Earth creationism or Old Earth Creationism. That is not what the Bible is about. Yes, we can discuss such a truth, but I believe that should not be the focus of any ministry. The gospel is what needs to go out and not Young Earth Creationism, or Old Earth Creationism. Holding to either view does not save.

Click to expand...

True this debate does not save! But the harm that has come by the church making compromises on creation have created many many other compromises. Remember as it is written, "It is the little foxes that spoil the vine".

The end result of this is that many many people including believers have rejected other major doctrines because they have been taught that YEC is wrong and then Satan with his wiles has produce _"Well if that is wriong, what else is wrong".

This is not a soteriological debate but a bilbliological debate. Jude commands us to earnestly contend for teh faith once for all handed down, and that includes creation.

I study much under the young earth ministries! They also load their sites with messages of salvation. It is part and parcel of our whole worldview as believers. If you remove God as creator and sovereing of the universe- it starts a domino effect that history has shown a tragedy.

eleos1954 said:

Each day of creation in Genesis 1 is marked by ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, so it is impossible to stretch the days out to thousands/millions of years ... or anything that is NOT evening and the morning.

It says what it says.

evening and the morning!

You take care.

Click to expand...

Evening and morning mark the end of one era and the beginning of the next era, and would you believe it, science has only recently known this. The waters first and then the land and then new life, etc. exactly in the same order as the Bible describes. This to my mind proves the divine inspiration of the Bible. Day four when it all went dark is when the dinosaur's died. Scientists say that is when a meteorite hit the earth and threw up clouds of dust blotting out the sun. Science is proving the truth of the Bible, so all I am asking is not to make a shipwreck of the divine word of God, by the misuse of the word yome. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us and it is taking more than six earth days. Be patient, look after yourself, may God bless you and remember it takes three hundred million years for coal to form and millions of years for water to gouge out the Grand Canyon from the rock.

The presumption here is that “ evolutionism” is a defined explanation for life. It isn’t.

Because 1/ abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis in the scientific method,it does not qualify: it does not repeat, cannot be repeated and no experiment can be formulated to test it. One of which is needed for scientific method.

2/ Since the most primitive cell - a self repairing evolving production line of tens of thousands of proteins is orders of magnitude more complicated than any chemical factory on earth, it did not pop into existence as an accident. No intermediate is postulated as a stepping stone to it. Microevolution at best explains the last 0.1 percent, not the first 99.9

3/ micro evolution, think dogs with longer legs is provable. Macro evolution is far from defined.eg How did a 3 chamber heart become 4, without killing the species since it involves a complete reversal of one way blood flows. How did that happen by accident? It’s like replumbing an entire house, just by waiting for the right joints to make!

4/ Darwin’s theory is disproven by his own test. “ if any living matter can be shown to have arisen by other than small changes ,my theory is disproven” . So sorry Darwin! Eucharistic miracles are forensically proven life ( heart myocardium) from non life ( bread) so intimately woven together at edges they cannot becfraud.

in short , evolution is not even a valid scientific hypothesis let alone theory on origin of life. It is a religion of atheists.

and in evidence terms theistic origin scores at least 5-0 over evolution.

You are still trying t

BobRyan said:

Moses wrote Genesis

Click to expand...

You are trying to take two parts of the Bible and make them say they are saying and meaning the same.

Genesis 1 is the creation account of God creating the heavens and earth. It has nothing to do with Moses receiving commandments from God.

A creationist is not a full Biblical creationist, if they use or believe sources outside of the Bible to build their creation model. The only source, for description, for Gods creation is the Bible.

What i believe as the creation model is a accurate today as it was 2000 years ago. I do not have to change any belief to accommodate science.

Day H3117
יוֹם
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Total KJV occurrences: 2295

nolidad said:

True this debate does not save! But the harm that has come by the church making compromises on creation have created many many other compromises. Remember as it is written, "It is the little foxes that spoil the vine".

The end result of this is that many many people including believers have rejected other major doctrines because they have been taught that YEC is wrong and then Satan with his wiles has produce _"Well if that is wriong, what else is wrong".

This is not a soteriological debate but a bilbliological debate. Jude commands us to earnestly contend for teh faith once for all handed down, and that includes creation.

I study much under the young earth ministries! They also load their sites with messages of salvation. It is part and parcel of our whole worldview as believers. If you remove God as creator and sovereing of the universe- it starts a domino effect that history has shown a tragedy.

Click to expand...

I understand that creation is a part of the faith, and I am not against preaching the correct view of creation. It just is not my main focus of my ministry like AIG (Answers in Genesis). Jesus is the main focus of my ministry. Yes, I am aware they preach salvation via Jesus Christ. But that is not the main focus of their ministry. They preach Young Earth Creationism as their main message. It's why they are called Answers in Genesis. So while I have found their website and resources helpful when I first started to truly study God's Word, I have grown beyond the basics of focusing on YEC (like when I first began to study God's Word). I remember watching the Creation Today show a lot. They sure talked about God and His creation, but they did not always talk about Jesus. Therein lies the problem.

BobRyan said:

That is an arbitrary definition. Most creationist know that the earth rotates and that this results in the evening-and-morning sequence we see everyday.

I don't know of a single one that views that every-day fact as a denial of the Creation account in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Whether they view it, is not the issue. The issue is what they believe is it supported by the Bible. I say no, if you believe so, show the Biblical support.

BobRyan said:

Augustine also thought the Bible was wrong about that and that God's creative ability was much better than a 7 day creation week. But of course God's speaking ability was much better than a 40 day period with Moses on the mountain top - so maybe the Bible got that wrong as well. Then of course infinite God could work the ministry of Christ on Earth in much less time than 3.5 years so maybe the Bible is wrong about that as well. This sort of revision has no end to it from what I can see.



Moses wrote Genesis

====(That part above was piecing back together this conversation string of snips to help me figure out what you are saying)



Two "parts of" the Bible? How about two books written by the same author to the same contemporary readers - same context, same writer, same subject.



It is a one line summary by Moses stating that God made everything. John 1 does the same thing.

What is your point?



Until you note that those commandments point directly at the Genesis 2:1-3 fact

Gen 2
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:8-11 "six days you shall labor...11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Click to expand...

If you take Genesis 1:2 as the creation God created in Genesis 1:1, then you are basically taking an evolutionist type of position.

That God created an imperfect earth, a portrayal of a “place of chaos, formlessness, emptiness, a wasteland”

The idea that God created the earth as the wasteland of darkness described in this verse contradicts God’s nature and character revealed elsewhere in the Bible. Deuteronomy 32:4 shows us that God’s “work is perfect.” In 1 Corinthians 14:33 Paul tells us that “God is not the author of confusion.” In 1 John 1:5 John reveals that “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.”

Perfection and a complete lack of confusion and darkness define God and everything that God directly creates.

BobRyan said:

Evolution is not the most logical choice based on observations in nature - so how is it we have so few creationists here? Or am I missing a group that does post here but just not this week?

Click to expand...

I believe in creationism, but find little point in posting here about it. I cannot PROVE that Julius Caesar really existed, so how am I going to PROVE that my “belief” about an ancient event is correct and the “belief” of another about the same ancient event is incorrect. This becomes doubly true when “species” gets redefined to allow interbreeding of finches to ‘evolve’ a new “species” in a single generation.

BobRyan said:

agreed. God is able to show people the future and the past.

Click to expand...

he is also able to reveal truth beyond the literal

BobRyan said:

there is no case in the Bible where evening-and-morning is not a 24 hour day.

Click to expand...

The creation account has unprecedented aspects that other biblical accounts do not have. To start it was written 2500 years (by Moses) after the event happened. This is not a problem for God of course (which is not the point) but no other biblical account is like this and the closet is Revelation which is highly allegorical yet we cling to the literal words of genesis but broadly interpret the words in revelation. I'm not going to tell you it's literal/not literal but rather that the creation account probably has more similarities in genre with revelations than most give it credit. Its these deeper meanings that are more relevant to us than the literalness of the account. The details are used to foreshadow God's plan and point to his glory beyond the literal words and the former has far greater meaning and is a better use of our time than to get hung up at the surface level.

DamianWarS said:

The creation account has unprecedented aspects that other biblical account do lot have. To start it was written 2500 years (by Moses) after the event happened. This is not a problem for God if course (which is not the point) but no other biblical account is like this and the closet is revelation which is highly alagorical yet we cling to the literal words of genesis but broadly interprete the words in revelation. I'm not going to tell you it's literal/not literal but rather that the creation account probably has more similarities in genre with revelations than most give it credit. Its these deeper meanings that are more relevant to us than the literalness of the account. The details are used to foreshadow God's plan and point to his glory beyond the literal words which to me, the former, has far greater meaning and is a better use of our time than to to get hung up at the surface level.

Click to expand...

I think you are correct on this point.