Okay now...serously...apologetics only....evolution

[lands21]

From the view point of a 6 day creation vr. a evolution with big bang view point, please post some arguments that support the 6 day creation. This are arguments you would use in a apologetic.

Please do not hijack this thread like the last thread I tried to do for this.

I am try to create a defense, a apologetic, of a 6 day creation vs Macro evolution including the big bang theroy.....

 

[SBG]

I have question concerning what you are exactly looking for. Maybe I missed it as I haven't really read the other thread.

Are you looking for Scriptural support, or outside Scripture support, or both? By Scriptural support I mean the intention of Moses for how Genesis was to be understood.

 

[Chief117]

First of all, the Bible, in Genesis 1 of course, says the world was created in six days. If you look at the original text, the words used for day could not have meant anything but a literal 24 hour period.

That is compelling evidence (most would argue that it is not proof) that whatever happened at Creation, happened in 6 literal days.

“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

This is Biblical evidence suggesting that whenever man was created, it was the beginning. To me, this is a strong Scriptural argument against those who believe that the earth was created, but that we then evolved from lesser beings.

Now to believe in Creation you have account for certain scientific facts, such as (but surely not limited to) genetic mutation, rock layers, and fossils (such as dinosaurs).

I don't know a lot about the science of this argument, but I do know that these things CAN BE EXPLAINED by such events as the Global Flood described in the account of Noah and the Ark (Genesis 5-7).

A flood that covered the earth and the mountains could have deposited fossils anywhere and everywhere as the waters drifted. It would have formed the rock layers that we see today. It would have killed all the dinosaurs not on the Ark and left their fossils all over the Earth. For many articles and such dealing with the Flood, click here.

The face of the Earth would have changed from Erosion and such. Whole land formations could have changed in Tectonic Drift as the Earth allowed the waters to go back into the deep.

This is all compelling theory--rooted in Scripture--that can be used to explain many "scientific facts." The biggest thing I learned in school that bothered me was dating (no not the girls). Scientists said that rocks were dated to be billions of years old, and I believed them. I've since researched it and discovered that there exists today no method of dating (carbon 14 or argon/potassium) that is even accurate enough to project that far into the past (50,000 years seems to be the max range for carbon dating). What about Carbon Dating?;

I think the general inconsistency of all the dating methods is undeniable evidence that an Old Earth isn't likely....but then I'm not really backing that up.

The Bible is God-Breathed and inerrant. I'd take it over fallible science any day. The Word is good for teaching--and it teaches 6-day Creation!!

 

[hindsey]

This, for instance, is a lie. There is no evidence whatsover that a Global flood ever occurred. There has been no evidence of the Global flood for even longer than there has been evidence in favour of evolution.

The fact is that evolution is not an apologetics issue. There is nothing about evolution that contradicts with the idea that God created the universe, or that Christ came to die for our sins, or any other major belief of Christianity. It is not a salvation issue until you try to insist that people have to believe in a fundamentalist view of the Bible in order to be Christians. Then you are putting stumbling-blocks in front of people trying to learn about Christ.

Anyone with any inteligence would not fall for the hokum of creationism, and if they think you have to believe that to be Christian, they'd walk away in disgust.

Gen 7:17-24 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

The fact that the Bible records a global flood, IS evidence that there was a global flood.

You say that nothing about evolution contradicts with "any other major belief" of Christianity, yet it goes agains the belief that the Bible is in fact God's communication with man, that it is the Word of God.

Most likely it is true that there are men with more intelligence than you (and I don't claim to be one of them) that do believe in creation as recorded literally in the Bible.

Like Chief, I would recommend checking out: www.answersingenesis.org to get more scientific proofs of the way the sciences relate to Scripture.

 

[Bradford]

*** MOD HAT ON ***

This is the CREATIONISM sub-forum.

Per the rules, members that hold to Theistic Evolution may not debate in htis forum. Violators may be subject to warnings.

I trust that will not be necessary.

*** MOD HAT OFF***

 

[mark kennedy]

From the view point of a 6 day creation vr. a evolution with big bang view point, please post some arguments that support the 6 day creation. This are arguments you would use in a apologetic.

In Christian apologetics there is a strong reliance on historicity, the 'defense' of the Christian faith is predicated on it. The now exiled view that the Genesis is actual literal history bears the marks of solid Christian apologetics. That is at least how I became interested in it.

Positive proof is found in genetics itself believe it or not, once you realize their is a distinct difference between natural law and natural history. Mendelian genetics is opposed to Darwinian evolution and while the theistic metaphysics of Darwin was growing in popularity Mendel made this astonishing statement that still holds true:

"Gartner, by the results of these transformation experiments [i.e., attempting to change one species into another], was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gartner’s experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed."

(Experiments in Plant Hybridization, G. Mendel, 1865)

The laws Mendel identified and reduced to algebraic notation are still the bedrock of modern genetics. We don't call it the law of independant assortment that much anymore, we call it meiosis. Notice that this work is opposed to the 'opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a contiuous evolution of vegetation'.

This is solid creationism and it was drowned in a flood of naturalistic philosophy based on Anecdotal Evidence that continues to assail any form of theistic reasoning to this day.

Please do not hijack this thread like the last thread I tried to do for this.

I wouldn't dream of it, in fact I would be willing to compare the mainstays of Christian apologetics (internal, external and bibliographical testing) to creationism as an expression of both substantive reasoning and empirical fact.

I am try to create a defense, a apologetic, of a 6 day creation vs Macro evolution including the big bang theroy.....

If you are looking for geology exclusivly then I am afraid I won't be much help. I consider radiometric dating to be a classic example of how inductive reasoning takes acute observations to ridiculas extremes. The only two disciplines where they are allowed to get by with this is geology and evolutionary biology. They look at a microevolutionary change and say if you can't prove they don't accumulate then macroevolution is a fact by default. They observe decay rates over months or years and make postulates that go off into the billions of years. This would simply not be tolerated in other sciences and its the result of a galvanized secular status quo who suppress anything remotely theistic.

This is wide open for Christian apologetics and the most important aspect that should be addressed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[DirtDozer]

We'll I'll take stand for young earth persective vs old earth and using non-biblical accounts. "Science" says that the earth is 4.5 billions years old lets deal with this.
Evidence from earth
1. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.
2. Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)
3. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)
4. The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
5. Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years.
Evidence from History

1.The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)

2.Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.

3.Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years.


Evidence from space:

1. The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.
2. The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
3. Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks.
4. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.
5. Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
6. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.
7. Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.



There you can swallow that for a bit I hope this helps you.

 

[more 2 life]

I am try to create a defense, a apologetic, of a 6 day creation vs Macro evolution including the big bang theroy.....

Hello jeffderuyter21:

If it is purely a case from the Scriptures that you wish to build, then the issue of "no death before Adam because it destroys the foundation of the Gospel message" is a good place to start.

I also believe that the fact that there is no 3rd stage SuperNova Remenants (SNRs) that has been observed to exist in our galaxy. If our galaxy were really billions of years old, there should be 5000 predicted 3rd Stage SNRs. If it were only 7000 years old, there should be 0 predicted 3rd Stage SNRs. The number of 3rd Stage SNRs actually observed is 0. This evidence alone proves that our galaxy cannot be billions of years old -- because there would be 5000 missing 3rd Stage SNRs!

I posted this evidence on another forum and a person gave me a link that had lists of supposed creationary lies on it. [It should be noted that evolutionists believe their interpretations as fact and anything that doesn't fit with their interpretation is a lie in their eyes] On this particular link they said that the problem of the missing 3rd Stage SNRs is "also solved". As you could imagine I was a little confused, okay, I was very confused. So I wrote to AiG asking them if they could explain this and they replied.

That particular link never told me the rest of the quote:
"It appears with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of Eo/n differing greatly from those in the galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved".

Well, the logical question is what explanation that they are referring to? The explanation is that IF:
1. There was an incorrect estimate so anomalies should be included.
2. Assume the detection limit is expanded by a factor of 3.
3. Claims that there was an erroneous number detected by a factor of 2.

So basically Clarke and Caswell made up assumptions to try to fit the evolutionary model. Basically they said that since the data didn't match the evolutionary premises, they would assume that it was an incorrect estimate, the detection rate is wrong and anomalies should be included, then they conclude that this fits with evolution. This doesn't solve the probelm (and this is an embarrassing interpretation) but shows their allegiance to evolution over the observed facts.

Although I can't post the link, the article is called Exploding stars point to a young universe by Dr Sarfati of Answers in Genesis. An interesting read.

Another cool article is Speedy star changes - no need for long ages from AiG. In this article they say that in only a few years, a particular star has changed from a white dwarf star about the size of Earth to a bright yellow supergiant 80 times wider than the sun. This means that the diameter has increased by a factor of 8000, and teh volume by a factor of over 500,000 million. The astronomers expressed great surprise at the rapidity at which this change had occured. If this had not been observed to happen, evolutionists would have undoubtedly claimed that millions of years were necessary. We should remember they have never actually observed stas taking millions of years to change (it is a belief system). We should trust God who was there and has revealed that teh universe is much younger.

A very exciting field in science is starting to have an impact on the creation/evolution debate. The area of information science. See the Information Theory page from AiG Q&A Topics Index. I'm still going through some of the information there.

You will find all the evidence that you need on AiG's Q&A Topics Index. ICR and Christian Network also provide some good information, as does True Origins.

Just remember, though, that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted through a "world view" for it to make any sense. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence - and this evidence exists in the present (e.g. fossils, animals and plants, rocks, stars, etc.). Both creationists and evolutionists have the same science to use, e.g. astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, natural selection, genetics, information science, etc., etc). The only difference between creationists and evolutionists is the interpretation that we come up with about the origin of the evidence.

Christian creationists base their interpretation on the infallibility of God's Word from Genesis 1:1 and that it is meant to be taken at face value.

An atheist believes the Bible is not true and that there is no God -- therefore natural processes must have made everything.

T.E's believe atheistic evolution with God added into the equation. I believe that this is because they think that science has proved evolution -- they coud not be more from the truth. Evolution is not science, it is a belief system about the past (like creation) that cannot be observed, repeated nor tested. It is a religion (religion: a set of beliefs held to with ardor - Websters definition).

The theories for how things were made are subject to change, but the underlying premises are not subject to change for both the evolutionists (underlying belief: i.e. that natural processes made everything), T.E's (underlying belief:God guided evoution), and creationists (underlying belief: i.e. God made everything as He said in Genesis).

Oh my goodness, look at the time! 12:40 in the morning!!! Last I looked it was 11:00 PM! I think I got a little bit too carried away. Time for sleep.

God Bless, I hope you've had a great day.

Almost forgot, natural laws may also provide a strong case for creationists against atheistic evolution, e.g. 2nd law of thermodynamics and law of causality (cause and effect principle) -- see the Answers Book first chapter for more information.

 

[Xaero]

well.. good apologetics... i think we should rely on those facts which can't be explained otherwise to fit evolution. Some things that points toward creation can also be explained in an evolutionary scenario. We should always check out Talk.origins if the explanations are good.

The best facts are those which are unanswered

so here are my favourite ones:

1. Polystratigraphic fossils (for example: fossils in Green River varves)

2. Seafossils on top of mountains (Himalaya, Andes - they should have been eroded away after million of years)

3. Trilobites - they appear full constructed in every strata (their eyes are very interesting)

4. too much C14 in hydrocarbonic material which should be millions of years old according to evlutionists timescale (diamonds are the best example)

5. Cambrian Explosion


there are more (but it needs longer comments), but i think these are the hardest ones (i didnt find any explanations on talk.origins)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the strongest 6 24 hr day creationist apologetic i am aware of is from David Hall in:
Did God Create in Six Days?
by David W. Hall (Editor), Joseph A. Pipa (Editor)

or the YEC section in:
The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation
by David G. Hagopian (Editor), J. Ligon Iii Duncann, Daivd W. Hall, Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer, Lee Irons, Meredith G. Kline

Hall's persuasiveness and biblical scholarship beat hands down anything i've seen from ICR or AiG over the years.

....

 

[JohnJones]

From the view point of a 6 day creation vr. a evolution with big bang view point, please post some arguments that support the 6 day creation. This are arguments you would use in a apologetic.

Please do not hijack this thread like the last thread I tried to do for this.

I am try to create a defense, a apologetic, of a 6 day creation vs Macro evolution including the big bang theroy.....

Exo 20:9-11 "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: {10} But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

You can attempt to argue all you want that a "day" in Genesis is not a literal-24-hour-day, but this passage plainly shows it is. Here, God explains the purpose of the 7-day week (6-day work-week). Why is there a 7-day week? Everything was created in 6-literal-24-hour-days, and on the next day God rested. Why is there a 6-day work-week? God worked for 6-literal-24-hour-days in the creation, therefore we work 6-literal-24-hour-days. Anyone who requires a defence of 6-literal-24-hour-day creation beyond this verse, plainly does not believe the Bible; therefore when talking to them the subject really should not be evolution nor creation--it should be the Authority of Scripture.​