I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[PrincetonGuy]

Why does Luke 17:26 demand a literal reading of the flood? The meaning Christ uses doesn't change in a literal or non-literal reading so how can his words be used to support either position? I don't say this to challenge the literal or for that matter a non-literal reading but instead to show that neither is Christ's focus, nor should it be ours. Peter uses the flood account as a baptism metaphor so if we use that as a hermeneutic heuristic it's literalness is simply not the focus.

Luke 17:26. Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.
27. They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.
28. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
29. but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them
30. –It will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

In this passage, we find Jesus being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and his answering their question by reminding them of two historical events and telling the Pharisees that it will be “like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.” Sound hermeneutics requires that the two historical events actually occurred in order for the future event to be a real event. Furthermore, sound hermeneutics requires that the two historical events be literal events in order for the future event to be a literal event.


1 Peter 3:18. For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit,
19. in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison,
20. who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
21. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

In this passage, we find Peter saying that the flood prefigured (Greek: ἀντίτυπον) salvation through water baptism. Therefore, if the flood was not a literal event, neither is water baptism a literal event.

My friends down south in Chattanooga call this kind of teaching hogwash! In my opinion, they are being overly polite.

 

[drich0150]

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.....

Thank you!

I just posted a thread that may help:
How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

 

[We're At The Ark]

God is doing what needs to be done whether we correctly understand the Genesis account or not.
Once you get it that God is intimately involved in the day to day affairs of this world, that He answers prayers, intervenes to guide things along... it simply means that He is creating what is happening. In other words creation is ongoing. Frankly I'm in awe of what he's been doing. Dealing with rebellious beings in the heavens, setting the moon in exactly the right orbit, shaping the continents to tell His story here on the ground like is shown in the constellations, guiding that Chicxulub meteor to hit the sulfur beds at just the right angle, adjusting the mega-fauna population twelve thousand years ago, doing that fly-by on Ezekiel... this is all amazing stuff. And we're living right here in the big middle of it, in ongoing creation.

So my take is this: Any time I've got a problem with a theory about creation or anything else God is doing then OK, don't fret, take a deep breath and admit that I just don't know yet. Besides, it's such a joy to have something worth researching!

 

[Davy]

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.

I don't care to address those articles, because the simplicity of God's Word is what is most important. If you believe God's Word is true, then after you have first understood a matter in His Word, only then will you find scientific evidence to support it. So I'll make this easy, but it will be up to you to verify it for yourself in God's Word.

1. The phrase "without form, and void" in most English Bibles in Genesis 1:2 is a bad translation. The Hebrew tohu va bohu actually means 'a waste and an indistinguishable ruin'.

2. The Jeremiah 4:23-28 description of a destruction upon the earth using "without form, and void" is an explanation of what God did to destroy... that old world with the result being the condition of the earth at Genesis 1:2 with waters of a flood upon all of it.

3. The "without form, and void" phrase is often unknowingly interpreted by young earth creationists according to secular science, as if Genesis 1:2 means the earth material matter did not exist yet at that point, and that the creation was still yet in a vacuum nothingness state. That is not what the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 reveals. The earth had already been created by God at Genesis 1:1. There is no mention of the creation of earth matter past Genesis 1:1.

4. The earth being in mourning, and the heavens above being 'black', per the Jeremiah 4:28 verse, is about today's imperfect earth condition, and today's violent weather systems above today's earth. We are brought up to think that God's creation of this 2nd world earth age is a perfect one. And I admit that much of God's creation today is very beautiful. But nothing with this present creation is perfect. Everything desires to be perfect, even we within ourselves groan to become perfect, and released from the bondage we are placed in for this present world time. Apostle Paul taught God's creation today feels that need for release from its bondage also, in the world to come.

5. In Revelation 21, God's Word says there will be 'no more sea'. How's that? where's all the oceans upon today's earth going to go? They will go back up and plug all those holes in the cloud atmosphere around the earth. That is where all those waters on today's earth original were in God's original perfect creation of old. That is why He said for this 2nd world earth age, the heavens above would be 'black'. He was pointing to how the sky holes allows the sun's heat to bead down upon the earth, evaporating waters, and it going upward, as hot air rises, and the cold air at high altitudes drops, and they mix, which creates violent storms. That would not happen if all the sky holes were plugged.

6. Fossils of both tropical animals and tropical vegetation have been found at both the earth's poles.

7. The woolly mammoth found buried in ice in the Arctic, still with undigested buttercups in its mouth and stomach, also reveals those areas were once lush and green. And most importantly with the woolly mammoth found buried in ice, it reveals the mammoth was frozen in the very act of grazing on green vegetation. So where did all that water come from, and how did it freeze instantly? Those waters came from the sky of course, and because of sky holes suddenly appearing in those pole regions, those waters froze instantly.

8. With all the sky holes in the earth's atmosphere filled, it would produce a greenhouse effect of making temperatures around the earth the same all over. This is how tropical fossils could appear at the poles, and also lush tropical life at the equator instead of barren deserts.

9. According to Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3, he addressed 3 earth world ages; 1) "the world that then was", 2) "the heavens and the earth which are now", and 3) "new heavens and a new earth". The 1st world earth age God destroyed at Satan's rebellion in the old world. Most think Peter was pointing to the flood of Noah's day, but he was not. He showed how God originally created the earth by His Word, and then that old world perished. That is what Peter said some are 'willingly ignorant' about. And that is also what Peter was talking about with some things hard to understand in Paul's Epistles.

 

[returnn23]

The Catholic perspective:


• 'The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”


• “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”


• 'Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.” '

"Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

 

[rockytopva]

Creationism... Creation went from cold blooded to warm... Which is enough for me!

 

[Veni]

The main difference between 'why' and 'how' is that 'why' asks about the purpose of something while 'how' asks about the procedure.

A Christian can answers both how & why, because the lord is with them while a non-believer have nothing & assume to be a reasonable person....

 

[notworthconsideration]

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.

Controversy is merely a call for clarification- never a problem unless it’s unresolved…
That said…
Do you have the answer/s you need?

If still needing explanation, let me know.

In order to avoid unnecessary conflict publicly, I can only explain in a private message. It’s scripture, but most those who hold young earth beliefs, might belief it to be an explanation borne out of compromise, but it actually corrects an error in perception. I’d have to pass it by moderators first. I’ve actually been in contact with an unnamed creation science foundation about this… (they’d have to rewrite a number of recent articles, lol)

 

[atpollard]

There is a LOGICAL FALLACY at work when one takes the position that the world MUST have been created in 6 literal days (144 hours) or Genesis 1 is false and there is no "god". As Christians, would we apply that same hermenutic (method of understanding) to Revelation and conclude that if Jesus does not have an actual sword sticking out of His mouth, then Revelation is false and there is no "god"? ... OF COURSE NOT! We recognize that Revelation is attempting to explain a SPIRITUAL truth and not a literal physical historical reality in biological detail.

So FIRST, scientific speculation built upon other constantly changing scientific speculation does not PROVE that God did not create the earth in 144 hours. It DOES offer reasonable evidence that 144 hours may not be LITERAL (just as the sword in Jesus mouth in Revelation is not LITERAL). We should at least remain open to other possibilities, while requiring more from science than what actually amounts to a stacking of "appeal to authority" fallacies. [It must be true because OTHER EXPERTS said it was true].

Second, I believe that Genesis 1 is a polemic ... a THEOLOGICAL attack on the other creation stories that existed ... whose primary purpose is to both REFUTE the false narratives and to establish a few critical facts about the WHO of creation rather than the details of HOW and WHEN. This does not mean that Genesis in innacurate in those details presented, merely that the details presented are incomplete. It was not intended as either a BIOLOGY or PLANETOLOGY text book. It is a book that reveals an UNCREATED CREATOR that merely speaks creation into existence ... nothing comes before God, nothing created God, there are no other Gods, no bizarre sex to create the word ... ETERNAL GOD said it and it is so. No other creation story says ANYTHING close to that! God was setting the record straight on what was REALLY important.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There is a LOGICAL FALLACY at work when one takes the position that the world MUST have been created in 6 literal days (144 hours) or Genesis 1 is false and there is no "god". As Christians, would we apply that same hermenutic (method of understanding) to Revelation and conclude that if Jesus does not have an actual sword sticking out of His mouth, then Revelation is false and there is no "god"? ... OF COURSE NOT! We recognize that Revelation is attempting to explain a SPIRITUAL truth and not a literal physical historical reality in biological detail.

So FIRST, scientific speculation built upon other constantly changing scientific speculation does not PROVE that God did not create the earth in 144 hours. It DOES offer reasonable evidence that 144 hours may not be LITERAL (just as the sword in Jesus mouth in Revelation is not LITERAL). We should at least remain open to other possibilities, while requiring more from science than what actually amounts to a stacking of "appeal to authority" fallacies. [It must be true because OTHER EXPERTS said it was true].

Second, I believe that Genesis 1 is a polemic ... a THEOLOGICAL attack on the other creation stories that existed ... whose primary purpose is to both REFUTE the false narratives and to establish a few critical facts about the WHO of creation rather than the details of HOW and WHEN. This does not mean that Genesis in innacurate in those details presented, merely that the details presented are incomplete. It was not intended as either a BIOLOGY or PLANETOLOGY text book. It is a book that reveals an UNCREATED CREATOR that merely speaks creation into existence ... nothing comes before God, nothing created God, there are no other Gods, no bizarre sex to create the word ... ETERNAL GOD said it and it is so. No other creation story says ANYTHING close to that! God was setting the record straight on what was REALLY important.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. These ages are not “scientific speculation built upon other constantly changing scientific speculation,” and they are not “what actually amounts to a stacking of ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies.” They are the actual ages of the universe and the earth as measured with extreme care and accuracy by astronomers and geologists with irreproachable reputations.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis were written in a genre of literature hugely different from that of the rest of the book, making the interpretation of those eleven chapters exceedingly difficult. Indeed, Andrew Louth has given to us a full volume of selected quotes from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on Genesis 1-11 beginning with Clement of Rome late in the first century up through Theophylact of Ohrid in 1100. St. Augustine spent much of his adult life attempting to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with what he could plainly see to be the reality in which he lived. Late in his life (415 A.D.), he published a 400 page unfinished work entitled De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he strenuously attempted to do that which is, in fact, impossible.

In 1984, Claus Westermann’s 636-page commentary on the first eleven chapters of the Hebrew text of Genesis was published in English, being a translation of the German edition of 1974. This is a highly technical work written for readers who are fluent in Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew words are not translated) and who are seeking very detailed and accurate information of value in interpreting Genesis from a solid academic point of view.

In 1996, Kenneth A. Mathews’ 528-page commentary on Genesis 1-11:26 was published. This is a mid-level work written for readers who are not fluent in Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew words are translated) and who are seeking much less detailed information of value in interpreting Genesis from a Southern Baptist point of view.

In 2022, Mathews’ 622-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 was published, and Mathews tells us in his preface to this volume that it is a revision of his earlier volume written to reflect the many recent studies on Genesis 1-11 that were published since 1996.

Perhaps persons with very little education should be a little bit more humble in proposing interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

Nonreligious Questions

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

An Index to Creationist Claims

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_creationism

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!

Check out this video. It's a movie that demolishes evolution as a theory. It's a bit over an hour and well worth watching.

Genesis Impact | Genesis Apologetics

We provide Biblically-grounded answers to the evolution teaching in public schools. Simply select your student�s 6th, 7th, or 10th grade textbook, view the evolution topics they are being taught, then view our selected videos and documentation that address each one!

genesisapologetics.com

 

[atpollard]

The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. These ages are not “scientific speculation built upon other constantly changing scientific speculation,” and they are not “what actually amounts to a stacking of ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies.” They are the actual ages of the universe and the earth as measured with extreme care and accuracy by astronomers and geologists with irreproachable reputations.

I am old enough to remember the estimates of the age changing over my lifetime. (That makes it changing opinion, not fact).

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps persons with very little education should be a little bit more humble in proposing interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

Perhaps 4000 years of Godly men have NOT misunderstood the word of God until the last 50 years when EXPERTS arrived to finally explain why it does not really mean what it says. True HUBRIS is the belief that God lied.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth is 4.54 billion years old. These ages are not “scientific speculation built upon other constantly changing scientific speculation,” and they are not “what actually amounts to a stacking of ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies.” They are the actual ages of the universe and the earth as measured with extreme care and accuracy by astronomers and geologists with irreproachable reputations.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis were written in a genre of literature hugely different from that of the rest of the book, making the interpretation of those eleven chapters exceedingly difficult. Indeed, Andrew Louth has given to us a full volume of selected quotes from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on Genesis 1-11 beginning with Clement of Rome late in the first century up through Theophylact of Ohrid in 1100. St. Augustine spent much of his adult life attempting to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with what he could plainly see to be the reality in which he lived. Late in his life (415 A.D.), he published a 400 page unfinished work entitled De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he strenuously attempted to do that which is, in fact, impossible.

In 1984, Claus Westermann’s 636-page commentary on the first eleven chapters of the Hebrew text of Genesis was published in English, being a translation of the German edition of 1974. This is a highly technical work written for readers who are fluent in Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew words are not translated) and who are seeking very detailed and accurate information of value in interpreting Genesis from a solid academic point of view.

In 1996, Kenneth A. Mathews’ 528-page commentary on Genesis 1-11:26 was published. This is a mid-level work written for readers who are not fluent in Biblical Hebrew (the Hebrew words are translated) and who are seeking much less detailed information of value in interpreting Genesis from a Southern Baptist point of view.

In 2022, Mathews’ 622-page commentary on Genesis 1-11 was published, and Mathews tells us in his preface to this volume that it is a revision of his earlier volume written to reflect the many recent studies on Genesis 1-11 that were published since 1996.

Perhaps persons with very little education should be a little bit more humble in proposing interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis.

Such time scales are based on unprovable assumptions. There is evidence to suggest that the age of the earth cannot be billions of years. For example, the moon is moving away from the earth, slowly to be sure, but measurably. If the earth is billions of years old, by now the moon should be free of earth's gravity. It is not, as the tides attest. Perhaps people who assume that science has all the answers should be a little more circumspect.

I have no problem understanding Genesis. I have the Holy Spirit. Part of His work is lead Christians into all truth. Too many scholars fall into the category of professing to be wise and proving themselves to be fools.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I am old enough to remember the estimates of the age changing over my lifetime. (That makes it changing opinion, not fact).

My memory is good enough to know that the estimates were refined to more and more accurate estimates. My memory is also good enough to know that the largest young earth creationist organizations formally taught that the earth is only about 6,000 years old, but they are now more and more often claiming that the earth is about 10,000 years old even though that “refinement” does not come from either the Bible or science.

In his booklet, The Genesis Flood, Fact or Fiction?, Tas Walker of Christian Ministries International agrees with John Woodmorappe’s teaching that the word “kind” in Genesis (Hebrew, מִין) refers to what we now call a genus, as in “the cat kind, the horse kind, and the cow kind.” But, of course, this is nothing but young earth creationist mumbo jumbo because, for example, the “cat kind” is not a genus, but a family (Felidae) comprised of 14 genera. Furthermore, Woodmorappe and Walker claim that all modern animals in the cat kind “descended” from one “parent kind.” But—what do they mean by the word, “descended”? They mean a biological process known by everyone else as “evolution”!

But, you may ask, “What does this have to do with the age of the earth?” Answer: the age of the earth has been measured using a technique known as radiometric dating and found to be 4.54 billion years old. Young earth crationists have their own expert in radiometric dating whom they cite to challege the age of 4.54 billion years. This expert is none other than John Woodmorappe! Who is John Woodmorappe? He is a high school teacher with no degrees of any kind in physics!

The age of the earth (4.54 billion years) is a very well established known. An excellent article explaining, from an evangelical Christian perspective, the source of this knowledge can be found here:

Radiometric Dating

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Perhaps 4000 years of Godly men have NOT misunderstood the word of God until the last 50 years when EXPERTS arrived to finally explain why it does not really mean what it says. True HUBRIS is the belief that God lied.

As I have shown in my post above, the interpretation of Genesis 1-11, and especially Genesis 1-3, has been a matter of disagreement among Christians from as early as the first century! In fact, young earth creationism is a very new discipline that was spearheaded by the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in 1961. Neither of these two men had even a basic education in any field of science relative to the age of the earth, but Morris flaunted his Ph.D. and fooled his audience into believing that he actually knew what he was talking about even though his Ph.D. was not a degree in any field of science, but in hydraulic engineering! Dishonesty and deception have characterized young earth creationist organizations ever since.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

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.

Nonreligious Questions

Evidence against a recent creation

An Index to Creationist Claims

Falsifiability of creationism

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!

look at dna. it's so complex. To have something like that come from an explosion, i wouldn't get a pocket watch from blowing up a nuke if i lit one up 1000X. And a pocket watch is 1000X less complicated than DNA.

Look at crystals how they naturally form geometric shapes. They should be random.

It takes more faith to believe in a big bang causing all of this. If we all evolved there aren't any in between fossils of any animal whatsoever.

Why is there a thing called a missing link? Because the fossil of the thing that is supposed to link monkeys and humans is MISSING.

Trust me on this, you couldn't convince me that evolution is real or that this all happened by mistake, i don't have enough faith for that, sorry.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Such time scales are based on unprovable assumptions.

People who know what they are talking about know for an incontrovertible fact that your statement is false! They also know that “Such time scales" are based upon the very principles of physics that God Himself established when he created the heavens and the earth!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Trust me on this, you couldn't convince me that evolution is real or that this all happened by mistake, i don't have enough faith for that, sorry.

Your post does not show a lack of faith—it shows a lack of knowledge of the facts.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have no problem understanding Genesis. I have the Holy Spirit. Part of His work is lead Christians into all truth. Too many scholars fall into the category of professing to be wise and proving themselves to be fools.

"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Commenting and Commentaries by C. H. Spurgeon

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (NASB, 2020)