• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A Creationist Argument that Holds Water

Status
Not open for further replies.

phoenixgw

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2006
525
44
Sojourner
✟940.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It has been said that the Creationist/Evolutionist debate is a petty one; it seems that quite the opposite is true.

By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith. These are not petty issues, for they both speak to the matter of faith (Who or what do you place your absolute trust, if anything?).

At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities. Their faith is based on reason and experience, and therefore, cannot be classified as Theists.

At the other extreme, we have verbal plenary inspiration, which essentially means that the very words in the Bible are God-breathed into the writers and onto the pages of Scripture. I could give these extremists enough discrepancies in the Gospels alone to blow their brains out. To hold the Bible in this view is to look at the backside of a tapestry and never see its true beauty or perfection.

Interpretation, in a Biblical sense, means to untie or loosen, as in a ball of string full of snags and knots (Heb. pashar). To interpret scripture is to untie a mystery so that one can see God's message to the reader in the text. In other words, the scripture is reading you. This day to day struggle with Biblical interpretation (individually or in groups) enriches our spiritual life and relationship with the living God.

Consider the following passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus. What does that say about salvation? Can anyone put their absolute trust in an allegory?--of course not.

So, say you believe that Jesus came to earth to die for your sins, and if you confess your sins, turn from your sinful ways and accept the pardon, your guilt will be lifted and you will be free to live a life like Christ did, carefree and loving, knowing that this life on earth is the only hell you'll ever know. Good for you!

Let's re-examine the evolutionary worldview regarding our world. The underlying assumption of this worldview is uniformitarianism. That means, for the most part, the forces that are at work on natural and geological phenomena on Earth are relatively constant. Things like sedimentary rock, canyons, and mountains are seen as a result of billions of years of natural activity (as opposed to any supernatural activity).

A supernatural explanation of these events would be attributed to catastrophism, meaning that much of the radical landscape that we see was caused by sudden or unusual events. A sudden flood, for example, can produce a thick layer of sediment in a few hours.

Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust. Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.

Massive erosion from flooding could also account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).

Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible) God describes a behemoth:
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God,
yet only his Maker can approach him with his sword. (Job 40:15-20).


Job lived before Noah. A flood would have killed all the dinosaurs and preserved them as fossils like we find today. If these were not covered with tons of sediment, there would be no fossils to find.

Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis. It was thick enough to protect life from radiation so that humans lived to almost a 1000 years. It never rained. After the flood, the special atmosphere was gone and 120 years was given as the maximum life expectancy for humans. Deterioration and decay on earth accelerated at that point; and life forms that died before the flood would appear to be millions of years older (i.e. dinosaurs) than the post flood fossils. Any measurement of age based on rates of decay would be extremely unreliable, given the abundance of fossils and evidence of catasrophic activity on our landscape.

Does this mean that "evolutionary" events like natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow don't happen?--of course not! But given a catastrophic model for radical earth formations, the contribution of these events are infinitesimal compared to a worldwide flood.

If you consider the evidence presented, a young earth view is not only plausible, but probable. Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6. Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.

Finally, if you are a theist, you recognize that God is omnipotent. As such, God is more than capable of displaying to us the glory of the heavens millions of light years away by accelerating the speed of light.:bow:
 

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith. These are not petty issues, for they both speak to the matter of faith (Who or what do you place your absolute trust, if anything?).

Good point, though for Christians, all place (or ought to place) their absolute trust in God. So the real difference is in what secondary sources of faith are relevant and in what way.

At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities.

I have to strongly disagree with this. The Deistic view is that God is absent from natural causes. Christians who accept evolution do not agree that God is absent from the nature and the natural forces God created. That includes the natural forces that govern evolution.

In this respect, it would seem anti-evolutionary creationists have more in common with Deists than evolutionary creationists, for they consistently condemn natural explanations of nature as "excluding God".

Consider the following passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus.

That is a misunderstanding of the nature of allegory and of the nature of literal meaning.


Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust. Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.

Fossils are not found on mountain-tops. They are found in mountain-tops. The fossils are part of the rock that makes up the mountains.

Just why could they not accumulate for millions of years? what makes millions of swift burials over millions of years unthinkable?

People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.

I will leave the geologists to provide the details, but canyons formed by floods are distinguishable from canyons formed by riverine erosion.

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).

Many mountain ranges show evidence of being lifted up by tectonic pressures, not primarily by volcanic activity.

Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible) God describes a behemoth:

Do a search for other threads on the behemoth. It does not have the characteristics of a dinosaur.

Job lived before Noah.

Scripture does not state that. Are you inventing information?


Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis.

Scripture does not describe the firmament as atmospheric. You are reading contemporary science into scripture and changing the meaning of the text to agree with your understanding of acceptable science.

Any measurement of age based on rates of decay would be extremely unreliable, given the abundance of fossils and evidence of catasrophic activity on our landscape.

Given that these same rates occur in distant stars totally unaffected by conditions on earth, why would that be?

Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6.

This assumes that the only interpretation of scripture available to an evolutionary creationist is a Day-Age correlation. There are other possibilities. In fact, many evolutionary creationists reject the Day-Age correlation as also trying to force science into a non-scientific text.

Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.

I do not see how that implication follows, nor do I understand why genetic drift and gene flow would be referred to as "anomalies" rather than as part of God's good creation.

Finally, if you are a theist, you recognize that God is omnipotent. As such, God is more than capable of displaying to us the glory of the heavens millions of light years away by accelerating the speed of light.:bow:

Praise be that God has more wisdom than his human creation.
 
Upvote 0

NathanCGreen

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2008
138
7
40
✟22,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith.

Personally, I find the idea of evolution insulting to both my faith and my intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

Mick116

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2004
653
51
44
✟25,375.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It has been said that the Creationist/Evolutionist debate is a petty one; it seems that quite the opposite is true.
The debate is an interesting one.
By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith. These are not petty issues, for they both speak to the matter of faith (Who or what do you place your absolute trust, if anything?).
A Christian evolutionist places as much faith (or as little faith) in God as a Christian creationist. The issue is not primarily about faith, but about biblical and extra-biblical interpretation.
At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities. Their faith is based on reason and experience, and therefore, cannot be classified as Theists.
I'm sure there are deistic evolutionists around somewhere, however, every Christian evolutionist that I know personally are theists, strictly speaking.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God is present in nature; God's presence and action in the evolutionary history of the universe is like his presence in a storm, or in the formation of a snowflake, or in any other natural phenomenon.

To acknowledge God's handiwork in an evolving creation is much like accepting that we are each created by God, while acknowedging that our parents certainly played their part. I am created, and yet I come from my parents. There is no tension here.
At the other extreme, we have verbal plenary inspiration, which essentially means that the very words in the Bible are God-breathed into the writers and onto the pages of Scripture. I could give these extremists enough discrepancies in the Gospels alone to blow their brains out.
Apparently genre means little to such believers.
To hold the Bible in this view is to look at the backside of a tapestry and never see its true beauty or perfection.
The Bible as a perfect and beautiful tapestry... lovely analogy.:thumbsup:
Interpretation, in a Biblical sense, means to untie or loosen, as in a ball of string full of snags and knots (Heb. pashar). To interpret scripture is to untie a mystery so that one can see God's message to the reader in the text.
Another beautiful analogy.
In other words, the scripture is reading you. This day to day struggle with Biblical interpretation (individually or in groups) enriches our spiritual life and relationship with the living God.
Agreed.
Consider the following passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus. What does that say about salvation? Can anyone put their absolute trust in an allegory?--of course not.
An allegorical reading of Genesis does not imply an allegorical reading of the gospels.
So, say you believe that Jesus came to earth to die for your sins, and if you confess your sins, turn from your sinful ways and accept the pardon, your guilt will be lifted and you will be free to live a life like Christ did, carefree and loving, knowing that this life on earth is the only hell you'll ever know. Good for you!
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, or how it relates to the rest of your post.
Let's re-examine the evolutionary worldview regarding our world. The underlying assumption of this worldview is uniformitarianism. That means, for the most part, the forces that are at work on natural and geological phenomena on Earth are relatively constant. Things like sedimentary rock, canyons, and mountains are seen as a result of billions of years of natural activity (as opposed to any supernatural activity).
There are natural catasrophic events too, such as asteroid impacts and earthquakes.
A supernatural explanation of these events would be attributed to catastrophism, meaning that much of the radical landscape that we see was caused by sudden or unusual events. A sudden flood, for example, can produce a thick layer of sediment in a few hours.

Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust. Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.
Why is this counter-intuitive? Exploration geologists work with the assumption of an ancient earth, and they can still find oil. You'll have to ask a geologist for more details.
Massive erosion from flooding could also account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).
I think there are many professional geologists who would disagree with you here.
Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible)
Is it the oldest?
God describes a behemoth:
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God,
yet only his Maker can approach him with his sword. (Job 40:15-20).
The tail is really the only feature here that might set the behemoth apart from any other large animal. The question is, should "tail" be translated "tail"? I wonder, did the Hebrews have a word for an elephant's "trunk"? I've also heard that "tail" could be interpreted as a part of a male hippo's anatomy. Or maybe it was a dinosaur, stranger things have certainly happened.
Job lived before Noah. A flood would have killed all the dinosaurs and preserved them as fossils like we find today. If these were not covered with tons of sediment, there would be no fossils to find.
Belief in a literal worldwide flood creates more problems and raises more questions than alternative plausible interpretations. Read Dr David Snoke's "A Biblical Case for an Old Earth" for a detailed list of some of these problems.
Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis. It was thick enough to protect life from radiation so that humans lived to almost a 1000 years. It never rained. After the flood, the special atmosphere was gone and 120 years was given as the maximum life expectancy for humans. Deterioration and decay on earth accelerated at that point; and life forms that died before the flood would appear to be millions of years older (i.e. dinosaurs) than the post flood fossils.
You are reading a lot into the text. If you look hard enough, you might even find quantum physics and the theory of relativity.
Any measurement of age based on rates of decay would be extremely unreliable, given the abundance of fossils and evidence of catasrophic activity on our landscape.
Exactly what types of "catastrophic activity" can affect the decay of radioisotopes?
Does this mean that "evolutionary" events like natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow don't happen?--of course not! But given a catastrophic model for radical earth formations, the contribution of these events are infinitesimal compared to a worldwide flood.
How "infinitesimal" do you think evolutionary processes are? Most creationists accept phenomenal rates of evoltuionary change. How else could the entire present-day biota arise from a few select "kinds" taken with Noah on the Ark?

If you consider the evidence presented, a young earth view is not only plausible, but probable.
I have seriously considered the evidence, and found YECism wanting.
Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6.
Not many Christian evolutionsts believe the "days" of Genesis really mean long periods of time. The "days" mean exactly that, "days". But they are in a story, which doesn't necessarily conform to the natural history of the universe. Genesis 1-3 is not chronicalled history, it is a collection of primordial stories/myths and poetry. Remember, genre is important. You can't compare an astronomy textbook with the poem, "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star".
Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.
Again, you are reading a lot into the text.
Finally, if you are a theist, you recognize that God is omnipotent.
:amen:
As such, God is more than capable of displaying to us the glory of the heavens millions of light years away by accelerating the speed of light.
But why would God deceive us like that? I find it more plausible that the creation accounts in Genesis were never meant to be interpreted as scientific cosmology, but as prose revealing the character of God.

Besides, if you have no problem with the rest of the universe "appearing" ancient, then why reject that the earth, too, can "appear" ancient, even if it actually is quite young? And since science is based on interpreting observations, there is then no real difference between a universe that is billions of years old, and a universe with billions of years worth of history crammed into 6000 years, to appear ancient. There may be room for agreement between old- and young- earth creationists yet.
Okay, I'll join... :bow: Glory to you, Lord, glory to you!

Peace and blessings,

Michael.
 
Upvote 0

crawfish

Veteran
Feb 21, 2007
1,731
125
Way out in left field
✟25,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities. Their faith is based on reason and experience, and therefore, cannot be classified as Theists.

That statement is completely wrong. It misunderstands completely the theistic evolutionist point-of-view.

Consider Acts 1:24-26.

Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Here, God uses a seemingly random event - casting lots - to indicate His will. Why is it so wrong to think that God also used a seemingly random process like evolution to create man?

And anyway, do we give God any less credit for lightning now that we know the natural processes that cause it? Because he doesn't miraculously shoot it down at us, does that make him any less involved?

Chaos theory states that very little is truly "random". Giving God credit for understanding and using the minutia of the universe in subtle ways is hardly taking Him out of the equation.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
It has been said that the Creationist/Evolutionist debate is a petty one; it seems that quite the opposite is true.
In the grand scheme of things, I suspect the debate it a petty one. Especially among Christians. Do the differences between YECs and ECs really outweigh that which we have in common?

By my observation, most Evolutionists seem to find creationism an insult to one's intelligence, while most Creationists find evolution to be an insult to one's faith.
I suspect it works both ways. I certainly feel neocreationism has done more to hurt Christianity than to help it. And I'm sure many YECs think evolutionary theory is an insult to their intelligence.

At one extreme, you have people believing that the life forms that are here today are here as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow . This is essentially a Deistic view, and as such see God as inactive in worldly activities. Their faith is based on reason and experience, and therefore, cannot be classified as Theists.
This is a misrepresentation of evolutionary creationism. Deists believe that God created the laws of the universe and let things run their course subsequently without His aid. But this isn't the kind of God portrayed in the Bible, and it certainly isn't what most evolutionary creationists believe. We believe that God not only designed the processes of nature, but that He also sustains them continually. Really, this is no different from believing that while the development of an embryo or the formation of a raincloud might happen via natural means, God is still in control of the process. This is what the Bible teaches, and this is what we believe. I suspect the misunderstanding of this type of providence stems from an ill-founded equation of God's action with miracles.

Having said all that, I now realize that you were presenting this as an extreme case, and not representative of all ECs.

If your reading of the Bible is allegorical, you've got an allegorical Jesus. What does that say about salvation? Can anyone put their absolute trust in an allegory?--of course not.
It's worth pointing out that many, if not most, evolutionary creationists read Genesis within an accomodationist framework rather than allegorically. That is, they read it literally, but understand that God's message was delivered in the vessel of ancient Hebrew science.
That said, isn't calling Jesus " theWord" a very poetic or non-literal manner of speaking?

Let's re-examine the evolutionary worldview regarding our world. The underlying assumption of this worldview is uniformitarianism. That means, for the most part, the forces that are at work on natural and geological phenomena on Earth are relatively constant.
That's what it used to mean in Lyell's day, but it doesn't mean quite the same thing today. Geologists have by-and-large rejected strict uniformitariansm and have moved on to embrace actualism -- that is, the forces that are at work today were also at work in the past, whether they be gradual or catastrophic. Geologists do not reject catastrophic events in the earth's history (just look at the K-T impact), but they do reject catastrophism as the sole explanation for the rock record.

Fossils, in order to occur, must be covered by some sort of sediment in a short period of time, otherwise these would turn to dust. Considering the existence of massive fossil beds on every continent (eg: Karoo, Africa - 800 billion fossils, not to mention the huge concentrations of fossil fuels), as well as fossils being found on mountain tops, it is counter-intuitive to assume these fossils accumulated together over billions of years.
1) Fossils do not need to be covered in sediment in order prevent decomposition. Anoxic waters fit the bill quite well also.
2) 800 billion fossils in Karoo seems a little excessive. Do you have a source for that figure?
3) As gluadys already pointed out, fossils are not only found on the tops of mountains, they are found inside them. Just look at the Burgess Shale for instance. These fossils were not made after the mountain was formed; rather, the fossils were deposited first and the mountain was uplifted second.

Massive erosion from flooding could also account for the formation of the Grand Canyon.
No, it can't. There was a paper just recently published that showed that the many caves within the cayon exhibit mammilary coatings on their walls. These coatings formed as the water table of the canyon slowly dropped as the river carved the canyon deeper and deeper. Mammilary coatings require stagnant water to develop, and most certainly could not have been created by the turbid flood you propose. See here:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/commentary/dissection/2008/03/dissection_0307

People that live near Georgia, USA are aware of Providence Canyon. This canyon is a mile long and 150 ft deep and its features are indistinguishable from canyons geologists claim took billions of years to build. Providence Canyon was caused by heavy rainfall in 1846.
Does it have caves with mammilary coatings?

A massive flood would also explain the sudden volcanic activity that it would take to the twist and upthrust rock formations we know as mountain ranges (which show geological evidence of once being under the sea).
How? How does a flood explain rock upthrusting? Just saying it explains it doesn't make it so. What are the processes and forces involved?

Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible) God describes a behemoth:
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Dinosaurs weren't capable of chewing like an ox and very likely would not have been able to process grass. We've had many discussions here about the Behemoth, though, and there's certainly no convincing case to be made that it's a dinosaur of any kind.

What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar;
Note that it's the swaying movement of the tail that is compared to a cedar, NOT the size.

Job lived before Noah. A flood would have killed all the dinosaurs and preserved them as fossils like we find today. If these were not covered with tons of sediment, there would be no fossils to find.
So why did the Flood sort the fossils with the simplest, unicellular life forms on the bottom, dinosaurs in the middle, and mammals on top?

Consider the firmament (atmosphere) above the earth as described in Genesis.
Your equation of the firmament with a modern understanding of the atmosphere is erroenous. It is very clear from the Bible that the Hebrews understood the firmament to be a solid dome above the circle of the earth that prevented the waters above it from falling on their heads. See:

http://www.drvinson.net/theo/185-DSY/version/1/part/6/data/Lamoureux.%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Heavens.%20On%20Scripture,%20Science%20and%20Inerrancy.%20PSCF.%20March%202008.pdf?branch=main&language=default

If you consider the evidence presented, a young earth view is not only plausible, but probable.
I think myself and others here have shown that it isn't.

Also consider that if creation "days" in Genesis were actually billions of years apart, the trees and plants created on day 3 would have no viable means of pollination, given that birds weren't created till day 5 and bugs didn't appear till day 6.
1) As I've mentioned, most evolutionary creationists don't read Genesis that way. See:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
2) Don't you think it's rediculous to appeal to miracles in your view of how the Earth was created, and then chide dissenting views that make no sense in light of natural phenomena? (I'm referring to your apologetic concerning tree pollination.)

Also consider the phrase, each was made according to their kind, implying anomalies such as genetic drift and gene flow were not present in this perfect, awesome world.
I think you're twisting the meaning of the word "kind" here to mean something other than what the Hebrews would have understood.

Anywho, I hope I've respectfully shown why I don't think your argument for neocreationism holds any water. Looking forward to your response.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
[QUOTEphoenixgw]
Finally, the dinosaurs--in the book of Job (the oldest book in the Bible)
This is completely untrue. Job was actually written towards the end of the Old Testament times.
How do you know that?
And what does that have anything with the description of dinosaur?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.