• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by LoveGodHateSin, Oct 16, 2016.

  1. LoveGodHateSin

    LoveGodHateSin New Member

    Hello everyone,

    I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.





    How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

    Thank you!
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. NothingIsImpossible

    NothingIsImpossible Well-Known Member

    Alot of christian go through stages where they ask questions. Even though many are raised with Christianity, our human minds as we get older question things that don't make sense still.

    I mean during my rebellious years as a christian teen I asked some questions too. Ones I won't post on here because I don't want them to contribute to you questioning things more.

    What I will say is why do we need to have rebuttals to non-believers? We have no need to answer them. The bible is the Word and really its up to them to prove Hes not real. But they can't.

    Look at it this way. God knows everything right? Things that even if we were around a million years (which we won't be), we still wouldn't learn. Heck He made these beyond complex bodies we have. The brain alone it still super complex and we haven't unlocked fully how it works.

    So if He knows everything, why would we believe some scientists who maybe know 1% of everything there is to know? What non-believers are good at is making long winded "stories" about "This is how this works and thus God isn't real!". Am I saying science is wrong? No. I mean theres plenty they are right about. Basic stuff. But most things that are super advanced they don't truly know about. Hence they are called theories.

    They will say "Well its no longer a theory because we can prove it!". Such as the big bang. How is that provable? They can't really know. Not long ago (within the year) they discovered they may be a bit off about gravity. And now we get into dark matter and all this stuff they still don't know. I take their words about "space" about as much as a grain of salt.

    Furthermore if you want to really think about it. Ask yourself or them one simple thing. See, science says they must go through all possible scenarios in order to prove something or disprove something. In that case tell them "You can't prove God is not real because we have not explored every possibly. Have we checked every planet? What about inside the planets? What about inside black holes? What about the most distant stars? What about different dimensions and places we can't see with our naked eye? Until you have checked all that you cannot say He is not real! Thus anything else you say is a moot point!"

    You asked if your faith is weak. Maybe, especially if your younger. I can tell you from my rebellious phase as a christian you do NOT want to go down that path. It lead me to such sinful things that I can't believe I am not in prison or something along those lines (I didn't kill anybody lol).

    It wasn't until I got out of that phase that I started see major growth in my walk with Him. Of course it doesn't mean my walk is perfect. We will always have trials or times when we are like "Why God, why?!?".
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  3. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    Nothing you posted is qualified to change YHWH'S WORD.

    So for you it all depends on who you choose to trust.

    YHWH(GOD) for life, including eternal life;

    or anyone else.

  4. Armoured

    Armoured So is America great again yet? Supporter

    Good luck. If you find any, let us know.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
    • Like Like x 6
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • List
  5. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Hello LoveGodHateSin, and welcome to CF. I pray that you are blessed by being here.

    If one focuses on the idea of Creationism (or anti-Creationism) there are MANY ways people have tried to get around the issue. Christians have proposed a number of scientific theories to make a literal interpretation of Scripture jive with current scientific consensus. There are those that question the scientific consensus and reinterpret it, some quite rationally (though those appear to be in a minority) and some rather irrationally (but sadly, very vocally). Some Christians propose various philosophical or quantum theories and such to make things "fit". And then some avoid the problem altogether by avoiding a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

    I'm not trying to solve your problem in saying all of this. I'm underscoring that there are many ways of looking at it.

    But the biggest problem I see in your case (and it is common to many others) is that it seems possible to you that your faith might be endangered over this one issue.

    No one can prove creationism. But I'll tell you something else - no one can prove evolution.

    I was trained by some of the finest teachers in the biological sciences, and my first education was in biology/zoology. I also developed an interest in education. And I recognized that the rather frenetic pace of academic training amounted to being given volumes of material to assimilate, specimens to deal with, and being told to memorize the theories that went along with it (which were largely about evolution). I recognized a few gaps, so then when I started in with more practical applications, I set myself a task. I wanted to develop a curriculum in which I would DEMONSTRATE evolution, not just throw a bunch of material at students and tell them to memorize it. I was quite proud of my ambition, and very invested in my project, and had invested quite a bit in my education. So I set zealously to work.

    What I found was one disappointment after another. The sources that I had expected the experts to have built their theories upon - didn't exist. I tried and tried to find real evidence, proof, evolution demonstrated for all to see, and I failed. The only things I found conclusively were that a few mistakes had been made. Those mistakes were not sufficient to disprove evolution, but it became apparent that I wasn't going to prove it either.

    Evolution is a story that provides one possible (though quite plausible) explanation for the evidence one sees. There is not another scientific theory that competes favorably against it, but neither does evolution neatly account for every question.

    Creation is quite the same. If we approach with a Christian mindset, the literal explanation of creation is quite a plausible explanation for the world as we observe it, and we do not see another spiritual explanation that competes favorably with it. Yet it also fails to answer every question.

    So in the end, we are left with a choice of who to believe.

    From a Christian point of view, many of the aspects don't matter (though some clearly do). For the sake of one's faith, it is vital (imo) to ask whether one can accept that there is a God Who purposed Creation, and is responsible for it. Once that is settled, one can take time and delve into what is necessary to know about the how and why. Not everything needs to be known. But it will become necessary to consider man, God, sin, and redemption. Dinosaurs and three-toed "horses" aren't really important one way or another.

    I'm not sure if this helps. After my frustration and eventual failure regarding my attempts to demonstrate evolution, I spent a couple of years studying alternative explanations (and still have a passing interest in such things). But I met a lot of sincere people who loved God who were VERY invested in certain "Creation Science" information. I will just urge caution there. Some of the questions posed, observations, etc. are thought-provoking and good. But much of it is an embarrassment to science, and I cringed to think that it was being used as an education to keep children connected to the faith. If they are more rigorously educated in the sciences, they will begin to see some flaws, and that could damage their faith if such teaching = Christianity to them.

    There ARE good scientific questions that challenge the commonly held theories that are part of overall evolutionary theory. And there is no need for our faith to suffer because such theories seem to exercise themselves above the possibility of a God Who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that fill them. But the path to learning that can be dangerous. Tread carefully, and give yourself time.

    Hold to your faith. Remember that it should be in God Himself, not in a particular doctrine of inerrancy, or a particular school of human thought regarding matters of science, or any other thing. God Himself.

    God be with you.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
  6. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    United States
    Other Religion
    Do you know in your heart that you are a sinner in need of redemption? Then it doesn't matter how you got that way, you need Christ.

    People who tell you that if the Garden story isn't literally true then Jesus died for nothing are pushing a political agenda which you might not even agree with.

    If you know you are a sinner then put your faith in Christ.

    And think about changing churches.
  7. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    I you are desperate, you really have too much hanging on the chimera of inerrancy. Perhaps the doctrine of infallibility would be a better place to land.

    From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrancy". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'"[2] Some denominationsthat teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[3] This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the Biblical narratives.[3] For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice."[4] In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."[5]

  8. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

    Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such.

    Inerrancy is often said to be true of the original documents. We don't have those, so this is a non-starter.

    Since we don't have the originals, the only way for the Bible to be inerrant would be for God to insure that NO errors crept into the copies. Now we are talking about inspired copies too?

    Since the many various biblical manuscripts DO have differences, now you have to sort out which, if any, was the manuscript God intended for us to have.

    Even when you settle on the copy that you believe is God-inspired, we don't have the original manuscript to check it against.

    Finally, when you talk about Biblical inerrancy, I have to ask, 'Which Bible?' Different Christian groups have had different collections of books in their Bibles throughout history. Which collection of books is the 'true Bible.'

    Even between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will find differences TODAY. The Catholic bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles. Which versions of these two books is 'God-inspired?'
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
  9. Papias

    Papias Listening to TW4

    Hi! Welcome to CF!

    There are different ways to see "inerrancy". Have you considered whether or not the scripture in question is better interpreted non-literally? For instance, there are tons of verses that are clearly non-literal, such as exodus 19:4, which says that God flew the Jews out of Egypt using eagle wings. But God, of course, didn't fly the Jews out on literal eagle wings - they walked.

    There are also plenty of verses that don't appear to be literally true, as you pointed out. Here are some:

    In 1 Cr 22:14, the amount of gold on hand to build the temple is 4,000 tons (1 100,000 talents). That's more gold than existed in the whole world at that time. Even today, after 100 years of modern industrial gold mining, only the united states government has more gold than that.

    Similarly, 1cr 21:5 lists King David's army as 1.5 million men. With women, children, and elderly, that gives a population of at least 6 million, and any country can only have a small fraction of men in the army (since general workers are needed), so the Israel/Judah population must have been over 20 million. But that's absurd - the whole world population then was only 50 to 100 million, with nearly all of them in India, China, and Africa. Another way to see how absurd an army of 1.5 million is, is to notice that this is more than today's whole United States military has only 1.2 million men- with a US population of 300 million people.

    As mentioned earlier, in the Bibles, diseases are caused by demons (or by the divine decree of God himself) - today we know that it's not demons, but microbes. The Bibles never, ever, describe even one disease as being caused by germs.

    Dt 32 describes eagles as carrying their young on their backs - but eagles don't do this.

    The flood as literal history is impossible in too many ways to list, in addition to the fact that the flood, if real, would leave clear evidence, which doesn't exist - geologists are practically unanimous on this - including geologists who are Christians.

    That's just a start - Going through all of them would take ages, and the Bibles are full of sections that, if read as literal truth, contradict science. I don't see these as "God lying to us", but rather as "God speaking in ways people will understand.".

    Practically all scientists accept evolution, including the thousands of them who are Christians, so I don't think there are good rebuttals. There are plenty of rebuttals, but on close inspection, they often aren't true.

    The main point of Genesis, it seems to me, is that God is the one doing the creating - regardless of how He is doing it. Isn't that enough?

    In Christ-
  10. Mediaeval

    Mediaeval baptizatus sum

    Do any of the better known creationist sites like icr.org, answersingenesis.org, creation.com, or creationmoments.org address some of the issues in question?
  11. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    Too much geology, all we know about the creation of the universe is that it was 'in the beginning'. Creation week is another matter entirely, I would say work back from human evolution makes a lot more sense.
    Same problem.
    Theres a lot going on there but I found this:

    The difference between chimpanzees and humans due to single-nucleotide substitutions averages 1.23 percent, of which 1.06 percent or less is due to fixed divergence, and the rest being a result of polymorphism within chimp populations and within human populations. Insertion and deletion (indel) events account for another approximately 3 percent difference between chimp and human sequences, but each indel typically involves multiple nucleotides. The number of genetic changes from indels is a fraction of the number of single-nucleotide substitutions (roughly 5 million compared with roughly 35 million). So describing humans and chimpanzees as 98 to 99 percent identical is entirely appropriate (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005). Claim CB144
    The math here makes no sense at all, 1.03 percent plus 3 percent divergence doesn't come to 98-99% the same. As far as I can tell the divergence between chimpanzee and human DNA based on indels is completely ignored. It's never the less an obvious fact.


    The following is from the link, they have this backwards. No self respecting Darwinian would ever accept God creating life an alternative to exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Homology for example, when things like humans and chimpanzees are the same it's evidence of common ancestry. When differences are apparent and beyond a naturalistic explanation does that mean they are evidence of creation?

    A hallmark of science is that it can always be proven false in future experiments. However many creationist ideas, especially the central premise that a supernatural being (or beings) created life, are not falsifiable, even in principle. Anything observable in the natural world is consistent with the idea.

    There is nothing wrong with your faith, the problem is that your letting skepticism mask itself as a science. Just ask yourself why you accept the New Testament, literally as gospel. Then ask yourself why worldly people can't come to the same conclusion. I have learned a ton of stuff about the subject matter and it's done nothing but strengthen my faith and I was certainly never going to slip away into agnosticism after receiving Christ. The premise of the gospel is that you can know God through the work of Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit and be with him forever. The New Testament makes claims like the Incarnation which gave me no end of trouble, until the New Testament witness finally sunk it.

    Let's work backwards a bit, did God raise Christ from the dead? What does the New Testament teach regarding creation? Christianity isn't about religion and science is far too limited to natural phenomenon to contain the God of redemptive history. Your not called to have all the answers, just getting your mind wrapped around the questions is a feat in and of itself. What God created in the past is one thing but the promise is that God will create a new you, it's called being born again. If you can accept that much the subject of origins is child's play in comparison.

    Creation is a New Testament doctrine, you have to know where you stand on the gospel before any of this will be worth pursuing. It's not about knowing all about how God's creation works or how God works in the world. It's about knowing the God who made you in a personal way and letting him meet you where you are and taking you where God wants you to be.

    If you want to look at Creation as doctrine and history I will be happy to pursue it at any length. But don't spend all your time staking your faith on things that are secondary to knowing God through Christ.

    Grace and peace,
  12. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    Text variation doesn't detract from the history and doctrine of Scripture unless it compromises essential doctrine. That's a false imperative.

    How the Scriptures were preserved is a factor skeptics never take into consideration.

    Still swimming around on the surface here, what do the variations since the autographs include would be the first question.

    Even if you take into consideration text variation the Genesis account wouldn't be changed at all. The Gospels certainly wouldn't be damaged in any substantive way. Actually some of the imperfections are more of a confirmation of the Scriptures since it's a mark of human handling. The extremes are not where most people live, the content and substance of Scripture have always been the essence of the Scriptures and any philosophy regarding the history of Scripture that denies or ignores this doesn't merit any serious consideration.

    Grace and peace,
  13. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    There's something we agree on.

    Paul's discussion of original sin in Romans 5 comes to mind.


    There is only one church, one baptism, one Lord of all. If your in Christ, your in the church. If you are in a fellowship that isn't building you up in your faith and working to build up believers and equip them for ministry, well yea, it's time to find a better place to spend your Sunday mornings.

    Grace and peace,
  14. tdidymas

    tdidymas Newbie

    The inerrancy of scripture is about the doctrines of the faith. Thus, "infallible" is a better term to describe it. Thus, since the times, chronology, etc. of origins is a secondary matter, it is ok to question how Gen. 1 is interpreted, since that subject is controversial anyway. But also keep in mind that opinions such as in the links you posted contain interpretations also. Any time you have people with different beliefs looking at the same evidence, you're going to have different interpretations, and thus different conclusions. I also question the YEC interpretation of Gen. 1, and I think that having such a rigid view as to say that the traditional YEC view is the "only possible interpretation" of it is a hindrance to truth. We must distinguish between God's word and our subjective interpretation of it. A change in our view of Gen. 1 does not make or break our relationship with God; but a change in belief about Christ certainly would.
  15. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    You need to read the thread. This is more than just textual variants. It also about canon.
  16. miamited

    miamited Ted Supporter

    United States
    Hi LGHS,

    What does it mean to you when the Scriptures tell you that God's righteous ones will live by faith and not by sight?

    You want proof that God created all things?

    For all things were created by God both visible and invisible.

    For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    And again:

    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    And again:

    For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

    Friend, at least three times here God has explained to those reading His words that He created all things.

    You link several sites that have given you reason to pause and reflect on what you've been taught regarding the creation. Is it your contention that if God's word is true that man's word will support it?

    What is faith? More specifically, what does God mean to convey to us when He says that His righteous ones shall live by faith and not by sight. What does God mean to convey to us when His words tell us that faith is the assurance of things not seen? If we can't 'see' how God created all things through man's scientific endeavors, then we come to a crossroads. Are we going to go with the assurance of God's testimony in those things that He tells us but are not seen? Or, are we going to take the other road? The one more greatly traveled that says this is the way; the way that man has proven.

    What does it really mean to have faith in God?

    God bless you.
    In Christ, Ted
  17. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    United States
    Other Religion
    A beautiful and profound passage, which (and I know this will not sit well with you) taking the Garden story as something other than 100% accurate literal history does not betray.
  18. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    The canon of Scripture isn't in jeopardy because of text variation, you need to take this in perspective.
  19. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    Adam in the New Testament is always portrayed as the first parent of humanity, that might not sit well with Darwinian predilections.
  20. Vaccine

    Vaccine Newbie

    Rest assured there are great rebuttals to those sites.
    First, check out:

    What makes them unique is the skeptic zone. They don't censor critics, rather do an outstanding job answering every objection. Here are some other resources:

    Next, pray "Lord, if this is true show me. I want to know the truth." I remember the first time I read something that challenged everything I believed, that helped. My faith is stronger, albeit worse for the wear. Another thing that has helped is identifying tactics. It will help parse through the parts that have merit and should be examined further or the parts where their biases come through. For example articles at talkorigins or whyevolutionistrue seem to be very thin on explanations and thick with the slurs, especially toward creationists. Not that everything they say is wrong, species do change over time, but that doesn't mean everything you believed is false either. There's good reasons to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You will find some of what they believe defies all reason and logic too. They just gloss over it better.

    Last, remember these are just fallen people trying their best to understand the world around them. They have their doubts too. Here's a good quote from Edwin Hubble (atheist)
    "Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature"
    They're just as shaken by the thought the bible is true.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2016