6-day creation vs eons? Evolution or not?

Anything having to do with religion or religious debate goes here.

Moderators: Theodore, elliemaejune

edburley
User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Traverse City MI
Contact:

6-day creation vs eons? Evolution or not?

Postby edburley » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:19 pm

Split from other thread, as the discussion from this point more relates to religion than the original topic.

Two things my dear friend,
First, I did change the word, using instead his initial. I still feel that these type of overreactions by Christians to "bad words" is harmful to our witness. We come off, not as sinners who are forgiven by a loving god but, as prudes, goody-two-shoes, who think themselves better than others.

Now, onto the claims that 6 day creation somehow has scientific backing behind it. With all due respect, the supposed scientific "proof" can easily be refuted by actual science.

Also, the main problem with your post, and why your argument has no merit is your ASSUMPTION that if I am not a 6 day creationist then I must be an evolutionist. How can I take your post seriously if you have not even attempted to look into the issues at hand enough to know that there are "progressive creationists," who believe that the 6 days were actually long eons of time. You are also not aware, obviously, of the teaching of the Gap theory which taught/teaches that there is a gap of perhaps millions of years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. You most certainly are unaware of my position, which is COVENANT CREATION, which teaches that the early chapters of Genesis are stories passed on from Israelite to Israelite describing their "choosing" by the One True God of the universe, who created all things, that "formed" Man into a covenant being who would be the Type of the One to Come who would reconcile the world to His Father.

Six Day Creationism is a relatively new "scientific" theory which has little to no scientific evidence supporting it. Virtually every claim made by the Six-Dayers has been shown to either be a hoax (like the human footprint in the Dinosaur footprint) or simply impossible (like the geological record within the strata of rock beneath the earth's surface).

In addition to my article, I would also like to refer anyone interested in the discussion (Mr. Ham's claim that children are leaving the church due to not teaching enough of his material) to another article by Mr. Gary DeMar, a Reformed believer, who wrote recently regarding the real issue behind the children leaving the church - eschatology.

The dispensational eschatology that has infected the church for the last 150 years, and is the basis for the "literal interpretation" of Genesis has been wrong every single time in setting dates and establishing timelines. In addition, dispensationalism is wrong theologically, teaching that simply being Jewish is sufficient reason for God to save, thus making there be another way to the Father - i.e., another gospel. Enough young people have grown up being told by their pastors, Sunday School teachers, and parents that "Jesus return is imminent" only to find out that they have to pay back their student loans, they have to get jobs, and by god, they will eventually die. The lie of an imminent rapture has failed for nearly a century, and every book written on the subject in the past 3 decades has been wrong. Yet, the same false prophets keep writing, selling, and making millions (check out how much money Hal Lindsay has made since 1973, and how many wives he's had). No wonder young people come to the conclusion that the bible is a fairy tale, an unreliable guide to life's obstacles. They are told that it's all about "the Second Coming" when it's really about God's redemption of humanity.

Here's Mr. DeMar's link: http://www.americanvision.org/article/w ... he-church/
ed

Papa is especially fond of us

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:17 pm


edburley
User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Traverse City MI
Contact:

Postby edburley » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:28 pm

ed



Papa is especially fond of us

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:04 am

Either you believe that God created all the plant and animal species, or you believe that they came from a common ancestor. If the former, there's no need for more than six days. If the latter, then much longer time periods are required (in point of fact, something on the magnitude of 10 to the power of 5000, but that's a different issue). My point is that if you believe that eons are necessary to fit in with modern science, then you are by definition an evolutionist, regardless of whether you believe God wound up the universe and supplied the spark of life. You just aren't necessarily going all the way back to the Big Bang.

If I'm wrong, can you explain why eons are necessary if you don't believe in evolution? And if eons aren't necessary, why eons rather than a literal six days? Is God unable to create the world in six days? I'm not trying to attack you or call you something you aren't, I'm just very confused here.

edburley
User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Traverse City MI
Contact:

Postby edburley » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:15 am

ed



Papa is especially fond of us

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:12 pm


edburley
User
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Traverse City MI
Contact:

Postby edburley » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:59 pm

ed



Papa is especially fond of us

User avatar
Theodore
Moderator
Posts: 2115
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Postby Theodore » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:42 pm

I notice you didn't actually answer any of my points having to do with geology or astronomy. Ridiculing the opposition does not improve your position in a debate, though I imagine it's cathartic.

In regards to dog species, yes, so long as you assume little or no genetic damage, and therefore no harmful recessive genes, there's nothing stopping you from breeding all modern dog species - including coyote, wolf, etc - from two dogs. It's only what, 1200 years from Creation to Flood if you follow the Bible timeline? And with a higher atmospheric pressure, there wouldn't be nearly as much genetic damage per time unit.

Regarding the large number of animals you'd still have to take on the ark, you wouldn't need full-grown animals, and there aren't really that many kinds of animal overall, if you winnow them down to just land animals that can't mate successfully with one another for genetic reasons. For instance, there are some 5000 modern species of frogs, but you'd only need one set on the ark. I haven't counted up all the kinds, but I doubt there's more than a few hundred at most. If I'm wrong, feel free to post or link to a list.

In point of fact, Ham is at least partially right about "old earth creationism" sending people away from the church. Regardless of original intent, "old earth creationism" tries to fit the Bible in with evolutionary geologic science, with the result being that it's much easier for people to be turned away from Christianity and towards evolution and atheism. Once you believe that something in the Bible is not what it seems to be, then anything else in the Bible is equally open to creative interpretation, and the Bible becomes nothing more than a guidebook of morals with no real absolute value.

Yes, Spurgeon believed in an old Earth, and we actually read his sermons every Sunday, but he never explained how an old Earth fit into the Bible account, and his beliefs were based off a number of flawed works (even by today's evolutionary standards) that assumed gradual change at fixed speeds and rock layers being put down one at a time and bottom to top. Seemed like unshakeable science at the time, not so much so when you've seen a movie of how it really happens. Just an example of how any man can be wrong. If you want, I can find out where we got the movie so you can obtain a copy for yourself. Seeing is believing.

Again, evidence is better than flames. It's better to post nothing if you have nothing specific to say, insults are just a sign that you feel you lost the debate.

Buggzz
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:58 am

Postby Buggzz » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 am



Return to “Religious Discussion / Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests