50 essays by PHD level scientists in support of literal 6-day creation

[Yonny Costopoulis]

God is not trying to deceive us. We only deceive ourselves when we believe a lie over His word. This just affirms you believe the speculations and assumptions of man over the word of God. Evidence didn't tell you the world appears billions of years old, the interpretation of evidence taught to you based upon uniformitarian principles believed by Charles Lyell and others lead to this conclusion. Again, no written record affirming the events of billions of years, no case studies to compare against, just speculation and imagination.


These are old and desperate attempts to discredit the inerrancy of God's word... usually by Bible skeptics who either don't believe in God or at least don't believe in the God of the Christian Bible - always an interesting and curious motivation when this is brought up by fellow Christians. The same erroneous logic used in producing these arguments are like-natured with accepting false ideas like billions of years and evolution - taking some things out of context, and taking a small piece of information and extrapolating it to an abstract level that takes one far beyond reality.

To be accurate, the Bible nowhere concretely affirms the exact shape of the earth - though some analysis suggests that the Hebrew words point more to a spherical shape (references):

Does the Bible Teach that the Earth is Flat?
Is the ’erets (earth) flat? - creation.com
http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/articles/Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth.pdf

I'll just stop at 3 as adding more feels unnecessarily redundant to any one topic. As to the firmament (Hebrew word "raqia"), is typically representative of an expanse or height above (references):

What was the "Firmament" of Genesis 1?
Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?
The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?

Ever see a bird fly through solid material? Nope? Me neither. First indicator that suggesting the sky is solid is a poor exegesis of the text.

We should not have an over-literal view (taking things out of context, using turns of phrase and instances of poor english translations as arguments against the inerrancy of God's word, etc...) nor an over-liberal view of God's word (that it's all just ink on paper and can be interpreted a million different ways to suit our personal opinions). In the original Hebrew text, all the references to 6 days in Genesis and Exodus state the same as the english translation, are written in narrative form and do not use any of the Hebrew literary indicators that suggest poetic form, imagery, or symbolism.

Dr. Steven Boyd has a PhD in Hebrew linguistics and has done extensive research on this very topic. Below are a few articles for reference:

The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story
RATE in Review: Reading Genesis as History
The meaning of yôm in Genesis - creation.com

I am sorry but this is pointless.

You demand that the bible be taken literally when it agrees with your thought. And then demand that it not be taken literally when it does not. In other words you want the meaning of the bible to always mean whatever is required to support your agenda.

We cannot possibly have a discussion with this as the basis of our discussion.

 

[lismore]

Yes, I know. This was the post I responded too. I asked the following question which you did not answer. Please answer this time. Thank you:

What does this have to do with fact that TOE is basis of much in modern medicine? And that this fact makes it a huge success?

Hello Yonny. I believe I answered you the last time. The basis of medicine came thousands of years before the TOE. Luke in the bible didn't know about TOE and still treated the sick. I believe what you're posting about the TOE is false.

Well it is all supported by factual evidence.

Rubbish!

Out of respect for God your last remark about God I will not respond to.

God Bless You

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Hello Yonny. I believe I answered you the last time. The basis of medicine came thousands of years before the TOE. Luke in the bible didn't know about TOE and still treated the sick. I believe what you're posting about the TOE is false.

I said "modern" medicine. The TOE plays a major role in modern medicine.

Rubbish!

Out of respect for God your last remark about God I will not respond to.

God Bless You

I never said anything negative about God. And I never said anything negative about your beliefs.

I did say that all of the factual evidence points to the TOE being correct. You will agree that God is responsible for everything on the earth, correct? So why would God make all the factual evidence point to the TOE, if the TOE was not true? This is what you are saying, not me.

I say God created all of the factual evidence, and made it all suggest that the TOE is true, because he wanted us to know the TOE is true.

Please, offer an alternative explanation.

 

[lismore]

I said "modern" medicine. The TOE plays a major role in modern medicine.

Euthanasia?

So why would God make all the factual evidence point to the TOE, if the TOE was not true? This is what you are saying, not me.

Untrue. I'm saying the assertion that factual evidence points to the TOE is total rubbish. The TOE is a complete fabrication.

Please, offer an alternative explanation.

People who think they see evidence of evolution are under a delusion.

God Bless

 

[NobleMouse]

I am sorry but this is pointless.

You demand that the bible be taken literally when it agrees with your thought. And then demand that it not be taken literally when it does not. In other words you want the meaning of the bible to always mean whatever is required to support your agenda.

We cannot possibly have a discussion with this as the basis of our discussion.

Your arguments are now obtuse and rather than discussing and understanding what God's word says you resort to mental splitting and extremes. You don't believe the word of God regarding creation, so naturally, having a discussion around it's inerrancy will be unfulfilling for you.

I've enjoyed the debate and wish you well brother -

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Euthanasia?

I am not sure if you are being serious. Could you please say if you are unaware that the TOE plays an important role in modern disease control.

Untrue. I'm saying the assertion that factual evidence points to the TOE is total rubbish. The TOE is a complete fabrication.

You can say whatever you like. But you would be very wrong. And I suspect you know it.
[/QUOTE]

People who think they see evidence of evolution are under a delusion.

You really think you know more than the hundreds of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to learning about the TOE, and how to use that knowledge to improve our lives?

You must have a vast and impressive knowledge of numerous scientific disciplines to know this. Could you please give a list of all the scientific disciplines you hold a PhD in, and the accredited institutions that gave you those degrees? Thank you.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Your arguments are now obtuse and rather than discussing and understanding what God's word says you resort to mental splitting and extremes. You don't believe the word of God regarding creation, so naturally, having a discussion around it's inerrancy will be unfulfilling for you.

The problem is people decide what is to be taken literally and what is not depending on their personal beliefs. We all do it. Unless you can give me a methodology for discovering what in the bible is literal, and what is not.

Unless you are going to say everything in the bible is literal. Which you argue it is not. So we will get nowhere.

I've enjoyed the debate and wish you well brother -

As did I. Thank you.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pretty standard Creationist arguments, the biochemistry and genetics arguments would be better if they focused comparative genomics. Especially brain related genes are formidable arguments supporting the doctrine of creation, if your in favor of an evidencial approach. It's a little disappointing to see so little comparative genomics related to anatomy and physiology but the essays make an interesting primer.

Thanks for the link, think I'll post it in the Creationist Resource thread.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[lismore]

You really think you know more than the hundreds of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to learning about the TOE, and how to use that knowledge to improve our lives?

If they've dedicated their lives to 'learning about the TOE' then they've been studying a fantasy!! God Bless

 

[Geoff58]

The mistake in this OP is the assumption that possessing a PhD means anything in this context. It shows the person to be intelligent and well educated. However, the idea that PhD in literature's opinion on ANY science carries any weight it rather ridiculous. Likewise, a PhD in physics is worthless if discussing sociology.

You can be very well educated and very, very wrong - even in your own field of study and hopefully no one needs actual proof of that statement.

I believe absolutely in Creation. I dont know if the 6 days were literal or figurative although I tend to figurative. What I am most annoyed about is that anyone thinks that THAT is even the issue. The creation story in Genesis may in fact be metaphorical and again, that doesnt matter since God created the world anyhow. We simply dont know the answer to that question and never will. There is no evidence possible to make a evidence-based conclusion either way.