What's Your View On Creation?

Universal Common Ancestor.

Eddie L said:

Are you Reformed, Philonephius? I think this poll was posted here to get a sampling of views from Reformed believers.

Click to expand...

He goes to a Reformed Church. (Thank you Google).

The Catholic, however, isn't supposed to be in here. lol.

Rothen said:

Universal Common Ancestor.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I have not heard of that before. I'll have to look it up.

Philonephius said:

Yes, and that is why evolution is a science. There are dozens of examples of evolution occurring within the last 100 years alone. When the wall lizard was introduced to a small island off Croatia, it took just under 40 years for them to evolve an entirely new structure in their digestive system, thereby allowing them to consume native vegetation.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

There are many more examples with bacteria, since generations are much shorter. But even without such examples, the evidence to support evolution is overwhelming. The fossil record and genetics (e.g. endogenous retroviruses) alone have sufficiently proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

But, how that all came about, matter, cannot be observed. Why? because that would require a whole universe to be almost 100% energy than change to matter in solid state. You cannot prove a "theory" with a dozen examples, you need ALL the examples. That means everything has to be observable, testable, and repeatable...EVERYTHING, not a dozen, everything. The fossil record, the machines and dating methods are already proven to be inaccurate after 6000+ years.
The trouble is, the evolutionists believe we live in some "cosmos box" which conveniently takes God completely out of the picture believing everything there was, and ever will be is inside of it, which is why its wrong, its another terrible attempt to find truth without God. They have rejected Him and will NEVER find their answers to life in it. Truth is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. Sometimes, you just have to believe that God did it, and He did, and it was good. The fact that you can't believe that God could create Earth in 6 days is ridiculous. Oh you have little faith.

Go back to school, and re-learn the scientific method in and out, as well as what is true science. Then re-think what you have said already, then come back.

Oh, not to mention, when God created the Earth, I highly doubt the trees were small and the plants were sprouts...etc...It was earth! With all the fossil layers!! It doesn't make sense for Him to make and earth with saplings for trees, I bet He created all the layers with Earth, just a thought.

What I mean by this is the dishonesty of the skeletal figures they found in Africa that they believe to be our ancestor. That is ridiculous. That is the skeleton of an extinct ape. I saw their documentary and they even said that the skeleton didn't make any since and that it wouldn't be able to stand upright, but you know what they did? They made a model and reconstructed it to make it work and made claims that this is how it must have been in its life, which is very dishonest. I'm not sure if this was "Lucy" or "Lucy's Baby" (both are just apes).

Click to expand...

You're a bit behind the times. The latest YEC argument, I hear, is that Homo erectus is fully human, but was afflicted by a disease that distorted their skeletal structure.

Several Homo erectus skeletons have been discovered. Their spinal and pelvic structure indicates that they walked upright (it is similar to that of humans), but their brain size was smaller than ours, and their facial structure more primitive (e.g. sloping forehead).

tinyurl.com/c56b5w7

That is certainly not human...nor is it "ape."

(BTW - I can't post real URLs yet, so you'll have to copy and paste the links. Sorry about that).

Things get much more interesting with the Neanderthals, though, since the evidence is more recent. Neanderthals used tools, produced art, buried their dead, and used language. In a sense, they were very much human-like. But genetically speaking, they were not human at all:

tinyurl.com/f4hgt

Really? Even that is a dishonest claim. Most sensible scientist reject evolution. It can be refuted very easily.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information? Numerous surveys have demonstrated that the vast majority of scientists and academics accept evolution. A 2009 Pew Research survey, for example, reveals that 97% of scientists accept evolution - including scientists who aren't trained in the field of biology, such as engineering, atmospheric science, etc.

ncse.com/news/2009/07/views-evolution-among-public-scientists-004904

This is further reinforced by an earlier (1997) Gallup survey which concluded that 95% of scientists accept evolution, while only 5% of scientists (including those outside the field of biology) believed in YEC. By some accounts, as few as 0.15% of scientists working in relevant fields (biology, biochemistry, etc.) believe in YEC.

tinyurl.com/m49duk

On another note, even today it is possible to find medical professionals who deny any link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

(AiG Video)

Click to expand...

Claim #1: "Evolution insists that life came from non-life."

Abiogenesis (the study of how life arose from inorganic matter) has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is an interesting topic that has produced some intriguing results, but for the sake of remaining on-topic (and since we are both Christians who believe God is the ultimate origin of life), it is irrelevant.

Not exactly a solid start to that video.

Claim #2: "Science demonstrates that over time, living organisms lose genetic information; they do not gain it."

An embarrassingly false assertion.

tinyurl.com/5j5chg

Example: a frameshift mutation provided certain bacteria with the ability to produce nylonaise, an enzyme that enables to degrade nylon. These bacteria were first discovered in wastewater in close proximity to nylon plants. Nylon is an artificial material; the genes for processing nylon were not present in nature prior to its invention (obviously).

Claim #3: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code."

Completely untrue, as demonstrated in my rebuttal to claim #2.

Claim #4: "Never has it been observed that life can come from non-life."

Again, abiogenesis isn't relevant to the topic at hand (evolution). The narrator would know this if he possessed training in a relevant field of study, such as biology. Evidently, that is not the case.

There are processes whereby life can originate from non-living matter. I would be happy to start a thread on the subject if you would like to discuss it further.

CARM: For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.

Click to expand...

False.

tinyurl.com/25vsd

Besides, there are many other methods used for cross-verification, all of which produces results in sharp contradiction to YEC claims. A few examples:

1) Corals grow upon the remains of deceased corals, and reproduce very slowly. Based on the rate of growth, marine biologists in Australia have estimated that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years. Reef structures as they appear today have existed for around 600,000 years -- 100 times the age of the planet as claimed by YECs.

2) Rocks containing ancient tidal deposits reveal that at one time, the moon orbited the Earth approximately 25 percent closer than it does today. In order for this to fit with the YEC model, the moon would have to retreat from the Earth by around 15 kilometers per year. In actuality, its orbit is receding by less than 4 centimeters per year.

3) Under natural conditions, petrification is a very slow process, probably taking millions of years. There is no known mechanism whereby petrified forests can be produced within the YEC timeframe.

4) The formation of permafrost is also a very slow process. There are places in Alaska where permafrost penetrates over 600 meters into the ground, a process that would require in excess of 225,000 years by conservative estimates.

As paraphrased from RationalWiki. You should take a look at the full article:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

CARM: "According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five..."

Click to expand...

A bold claim, considering YECs typically argue that there is no such thing as a non-harmful mutation. Regardless, it stands in contradiction to what I've already pointed out: namely, that even today we can observe new structures developing in nature. A very solid example are the wall lizards introduced to a small island off Croatia around 40 years ago. When scientists finally visited the island again following years of war, they found that the carnivorous lizards had developed cecal values (a muscle separating their small and large intestine), thereby allowing them to digest vegetation.

If that isn't a new structure, well shucks, what is a new structure?

All this, and I haven't even touched on the overwhelming fossil evidence that confirms the theory of evolution. The fossil record and genetics (particularly endogenous retroviruses) alone are sufficient to prove evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.

AllForHisGlory said:

Oh, not to mention, when God created the Earth, I highly doubt the trees were small and the plants were sprouts...etc...It was earth! With all the fossil layers!! It doesn't make sense for Him to make and earth with saplings for trees, I bet He created all the layers with Earth, just a thought.

Click to expand...

Well, sure, it is possible that God made the earth to appear as though it were 4.2 billion years old, put fake fossils in the ground (and conveniently placed increasingly complex organisms in higher strata), and rigged our genetics to give the appearance of common descent. All that is possible, but highly improbable, as it would seem to contradict the character of God. God is not the author of confusion.

Furthermore, the scenario you presented cannot be falsified and therefore isn't relevant, with all due respect.

Eddie L said:

Are you Reformed, Philonephius? I think this poll was posted here to get a sampling of views from Reformed believers.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am Reformed. At some point I'll jump into some of the theological discussions, which is an area I think we'll be in much closer agreement.

I wish I could count the number of times this has come up in both the Baptist and Fundamentalist areas.

Let just say what I have always said:

DeaconDean said:

Lets take Gen.1:1-5 and look at this closely and objectively.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." -Gen. 1:1-5 (KJV)

Beginning in verse 1, we see that in the beginning was God. Now this is interesting in that no timeline whatsoever is given here. All we know for sure is that in the beginning of recorded time, God was already there.

In verse 2 we see that the earth was made and there was noting here, absolutely nothing but water and darkeness and chaos. And the Holy Spirit "moved" upon the face of the waters and brought clam to chaos.

Then God creates light. And that light is what separates from darkness.

Then in verse 4 we see that God separates the light day, and the darkness.

And finally in verse 5 we see that the light was called day, and the darkness night. And at the end of this, this was the very first day.

Now, some have pointed out one verse that Biblical Literalists use to justify the "young earth" creationism theory.

If this "theory" is true, then what we end up with is an earth that is only at the very oldest some 13,300 years old. (give or take a few years)

Now here me out first.

Each day of the creation equals 1000 years. Six days to make the creation = 6000 years. One day to rest = 7000 years. Now my Bible dates the writing of the Pentauch/Torah, the Law books to about 3500 BC. Add this to the creation years, this equals 10,500 years. 430 years between the Old and New Testament period, or about a half a day. Since the brith of Christ, we have some 2000 years, or two days, so what we are left with is some 13,333 years.

Now this is if take the Bible "Literally" at 1 day = 1000 years.

However, what we are left with is taking an allegory and appling it literally.

Now there is precidence for this in what James says in James 4:14:

"For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."

The best anology of this verse is to imagine lighting a match. Your birth is like when you first strike the match. It burns quickly as it lights up, but soon, it settles down to a steady burn and then evetually burns out. That is like what our lifetime looks like to GOd.

But, then again, we are trying to put allagories on God.

We use terms like "omnipotence" referring to God as "all powerful."

Who is to say that God could not have merely spoke the world into existance. And at the very milli-second He was finished speaking, it came into existance. This is certainly possible if we believe that God is "omnipotent."

Now just consider for a moment what I'm saying here.

I am not arguing against the "literal" 24 hour creation. If that is what you believe, fine. I'm not arguing against that.

I am not arguing against the "literal" 7000 year creation either. If that is what you believe, fine, I'm not arguing against that.

What I am arguing against is trying to place our understanding of "time" against God.

Time as we know it, was put here for our sakes, not His.

We learn this lesson on the "fourth day."

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" -Gen. 1:14 (KJV)

Who is to say that the creation did not take place in 7 milli-seconds, or 7 seconds, 7 minutes, 7 hours, 7 days, 7 years, or even 7000 years?

All we know for sure is that when the earth was created, and all that followed, happened on the very first recorded day in history. However long that day was, we know what happened on that first "day."

I don't know how long that first day was, it is certainly possible that the very first day only lasted a second. It could have lasted only 24 hours. It could have lasted 1000 years, I don't know. Nobody does, but what we can know for sure is what happened on the very first day in recorded history.

As a side note, I want to interject this one thought.

Jesus is sitting on the right hand of the Father as we speak. He is in heaven. Scripture tells us that Jesus is:

"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." -Rev. 21:23 (KJV)

Jesus is the light of heaven. There is no day, there is no night.

In the timeline we know of, all the disciples died and went on to be with Jesus about 2000 years ago. But since Jesus is the light of heaven, and there is no day and no night as we know it, the disciples just arrived in heaven "TODAY!"

And if the good Lord tarries, we shall arrive in heaven "TODAY!"

Granted it will be just a little later in the day, but we will get to heaven "TODAY!"

Certainly this is worth an Amen!

Before time began, God was. "I am the Alpha" and when time ceases to exist, God will still be "I am the Omega."

When ever time began there was God, when time ends, there will be God.

Time has no meaning to God, time was put into place for our sakes.

So why must we limit God to our understanding of "time?"

And that is the point I'm trying to make here. As I said previously:

I am not arguing against the "literal" 24 hour creation. If that is what you believe, fine. I'm not arguing against that.

I am not arguing against the "literal" 7000 year creation either. If that is what you believe, fine, I'm not arguing against that.

What I am arguing against is trying to place our understanding of "time" against God.

Click to expand...

Who is to say that the creation did not take place in 7 milli-seconds, or 7 seconds, 7 minutes, 7 hours, 7 days, 7 years, or even 7000 years?

Click to expand...

Is it completely outside of our God who is Sovereign, and who is omnipotent to just utter the words and it "poof" come into existance?

I really think people spend too much time and effort trying to convince the other side of their perspective, instead of looking at it in this perspective:

The main focus in the Genesis creation account isn't so much about how long it took, 6 literal 24 hour days, or 6000 year-days, or even perhaps 6 billions years, the main focus for isn't on long it took, but who did it to begin with.

If YEC is your thing, fine, God bless you.

If OEC is your thing, fine, God bless you.

Time is not important to me, just the "Who did it to begin with".

To me personally, it does not bother me to know that it took six milli seconds, or six minutes, six hours, six days, six weeks, six months, six years, six thousand years, or even six million years, that don't concern me in the least. That theological question and debate is way down on my list of priorities. One day I'll stand in front of my Lord, and I can ask, or perhaps I can ask that question around the Lord's supper in heaven. Perhaps I'll casually ask, by the way Lord, how long did take to create the world?

Creationalism is way, way down on my list of things to debate.

I'd rather spend my time learning to be more like my Lord.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean said:

The main focus in the Genesis creation account isn't so much about how long it took, 6 literal 24 hour days, or 6000 year-days, or even perhaps 6 billions years, the main focus for isn't on long it took, but who did it to begin with.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Philonephius said:

You're a bit behind the times.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it looks like I have more reading and more studying to do on both sides.

Philonephius said:

Again, abiogenesis isn't relevant to the topic at hand (evolution). The narrator would know this if he possessed training in a relevant field of study, such as biology. Evidently, that is not the case.

Click to expand...

I will say that the video didn't claim that life coming from non-life was what evolution covered. That video is a summary of what the other information on the website consists of. If you claim that atheistic evolution is true, then you must claim that life came from non-life.

I know there are claims about life from non-life. The Miller-Urey Experiment shows that amino acids can come from simple compounds. There is one problem with this. Amino acids aren't life. They are simply the building block of life. Even if you construct a cell using natural processes (which isn't natural, but intelligent design) what gives is the spark of life? It would just be a non-living replica of a living thing. What gives it the breath of life? Would you zap it with lightening? (I am talking about atheistic evolution).

I guess my real problem with evolution is that if evolution is true, how do you explain original sin and the events in the Garden of Eden?
Believing evolution puts problems on Biblical doctrine, so I would have to disagree with the one who said:

DeaconDean said:

The main focus in the Genesis creation account isn't so much about how long it took, 6 literal 24 hour days, or 6000 year-days, or even perhaps 6 billions years, the main focus for isn't on long it took, but who did it to begin with.

Click to expand...

While I'd rather focus more on the Gospel and less on a literal flood like the fundamentalists tend to do, the problem of basic Biblical and Reformed doctrine are at stake when you claim things such as theistic evolution are true.

Still I have to do more research and reading on both sides if I want to adequately defend the faith.

young life on earth creationism - the sun and the moon about 6,000 years old. The earth "Formless and void with water covering the surface of the deep" prior to day 1 -- about 6000 years ago. So I am not certain as to the "age of the rocks".

The stars "created by God also" but not on day 4 because on day 4 God created only "two" lights - the sun and the moon and possibly the planets of our solar system.

in Christ,

Bob

God said "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" - in legal code. Exodus 20:8-11

No way to spin that into "in 4 billion years evolutionism did it".

Even Darwin himself figured that one out.

[FONT=&quot]

Darwin said:

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; ...

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

So also have Dawkins, Provine, and P.Z. Meyers and millions of others.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan said:

God said "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" - in legal code. Exodus 20:8-11

No way to spin that into "in 4 billion years evolutionism did it".

Click to expand...

The other reason I believe YEC. If the Scriptures say it, I don't like compromising the Bible for science.

And I don't like compromising the Bible for non-science in fact junk-science and bad-religion we call evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

CalledOutOne said:

While I'd rather focus more on the Gospel and less on a literal flood like the fundamentalists tend to do, the problem of basic Biblical and Reformed doctrine are at stake when you claim things such as theistic evolution are true.

Still I have to do more research and reading on both sides if I want to adequately defend the faith.

Click to expand...

Evidently some here did not read what I said earlier.

Let me re-quote it:

DeaconDean said:

I am not arguing against the "literal" 24 hour creation. If that is what you believe, fine. I'm not arguing against that.

I am not arguing against the "literal" 7000 year creation either. If that is what you believe, fine, I'm not arguing against that.

Click to expand...

Both young and old earth have their merits.

But I see the "Golden Thread" that runs through the Bible from Gen.1 to Rev. 22 is Jesus Christ.

Not the creation account.

I don't care how long it took.

What concerns me more than days verses years is who brought it about in the first place.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No way to spin that into "in 4 billion years evolutionism did it".

Click to expand...

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
2 Peter 3:8

So Peter is saying that a "day" for God is not like our solar days that he created for US, rather God's days can be very long periods of time.

And by the way, I'm pretty sick of YEC believers mischaracterising every other view than their own. Neither Old Earth Creationists (like myself) or Theistic Evolutionists believe in "atheistic evolution" or "evolutionism did it". I believe that God created everything, but that he did it progressively in phases over long periods of time. Why do I believe this? Because the record of nature is clear about that. I've yet to see a single YEC argument that hasn't been thoroughly refuted. In fact, if YEC is true, all of genetics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, and medicine are wrong.

Further, for the sake of inquiry, try to look at the Genesis days as ages, and compare the first chapter of the book to the scientific record. You will find numerous striking parallels, which I think only shows how credible the word of God truly is.

Now I don't believe that evolution alone brought about life, no God created life. He created it in different phases, and let it grow and develop. Keep in mind it says in Genesis that God said "let the earth bring forth". He didn't pop plants and animals into being out of nothing. "Let the earth bring forth" sounds a lot like guided evolution to me.

Look I could be wrong and maybe YEC is true. I just find absolutely no single shred of evidence, biblical or scientific, to think so. And again, none of this matters. We all believe in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe. We all believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and his glorious gospel, the depravity of man, and all the other essential doctrines of the faith. It boggles my mind that some YEC'ers are so concerned about such a peripheral issue.

I don't care whether you are YEC, OEC, or TE, if you are in Christ you are my brother or sister

DeaconDean has hit the ball out of the park with his posts!

ALoveDivine said:

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
2 Peter 3:8

So Peter is saying that a "day" for God is not like our solar days that he created for US, rather God's days can be very long periods of time.

And by the way, I'm pretty sick of YEC believers mischaracterising every other view than their own. Neither Old Earth Creationists (like myself) or Theistic Evolutionists believe in "atheistic evolution" or "evolutionism did it". I believe that God created everything, but that he did it progressively in phases over long periods of time. Why do I believe this? Because the record of nature is clear about that. I've yet to see a single YEC argument that hasn't been thoroughly refuted. In fact, if YEC is true, all of genetics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, and medicine are wrong.

Further, for the sake of inquiry, try to look at the Genesis days as ages, and compare the first chapter of the book to the scientific record. You will find numerous striking parallels, which I think only shows how credible the word of God truly is.

Now I don't believe that evolution alone brought about life, no God created life. He created it in different phases, and let it grow and develop. Keep in mind it says in Genesis that God said "let the earth bring forth". He didn't pop plants and animals into being out of nothing. "Let the earth bring forth" sounds a lot like guided evolution to me.

Look I could be wrong and maybe YEC is true. I just find absolutely no single shred of evidence, biblical or scientific, to think so. And again, none of this matters. We all believe in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe. We all believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and his glorious gospel, the depravity of man, and all the other essential doctrines of the faith. It boggles my mind that some YEC'ers are so concerned about such a peripheral issue.

I don't care whether you are YEC, OEC, or TE, if you are in Christ you are my brother or sister

Click to expand...