Page 1 of 1

6-day creation vs eons? Evolution or not?

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:19 pm
by edburley
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: ... he-church/

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:17 pm
by Theodore
Actually, it's evolution that's full of scientific fraud (as opposed to religious fraud...), not Creationism. Creationists are heavily outnumbered and can't afford to say anything that isn't true, but evolutionists don't fall under the same level of scrutiny and have gotten away with all sorts of things for years:

- Haeckel falsifying his drawings to make human embryos look like other animal embryos in the early stages.

- Kettlewell warming up pepper moths on the hood of his car and then planting them on trees for photos

- Osborn creating a whole "prehistoric man" out of one pig tooth

- The fragments of "Piltdown man" turning out to have been chemically stained and the teeth filed down to give the appearance of age

- Two scientists from National Geographic unearthing "Archaeoraptor", which was actually the front of a bird and the tail end of a dinosaur from two different slabs of rock, put together to make it look like a complete fossil

- Evolutionary scientists dislocating the jaws on "prehistoric" finds to make them appear more "realistic" for photos

That's just a brief list from memory. There are of course dozens or hundreds of instance of stupidity or egotism leading to totally false assumptions that were later proven untrue by evolutionists themselves - but can still be found in textbooks today and even tought by college professors.

Yes, I suppose it's possible to believe that the six days of creation were actually six eons, but if you actually believe God is all-powerful, then that is an unnecessary and overcomplicated explanation. You're basically setting limits on God to make things fit with evolutionary theory, when you should be searching for reasons why evolution doesn't make sense.

In point of fact, there is more than one instance of human footprints found next to or superimposed on top of dinosaur footprints. I suppose it's theoretically possible that all of them could be fakes created by locals, but in regards to your other point, there was a study done in 2001? that proved that many feet of sedimentary rock complete with strata / substrata and fossil layering can be laid down in a matter of days by sediment-carrying water flows. I saw the video of this in action with my own eyes, and Mount St. Helens also demonstrated it by laying down massive amounts of sedimentary rock and carving canyons up to hundreds of feet deep over the course of just a few days. This is actually one of the areas where evolutionary theory is most vulnerable, since both demonstratable and observable evidence runs counter to it. If dozens or hundreds of feet of rock can be laid down in days, and if supposed index fossils have been found alive today, what evidence is there that fossils in one layer is by definition appreciably older or younger than fossils in another layer? Yes, there are radiological dating methods, but these have serious flaws and while scientific in theory, are pretty much only as reliable in application as the tester's assumptions.

Yes, there are many shallow or heretical churches, and this is likely a major factor in why children of Christian families aren't strong enough to withstand the pressures of college. I'm personally not a big fan of anyone who predicts the date of Jesus's return...

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh

...and I also strongly dislike mega-churches that cater their religion to what their congregations want and are just there to make huge amounts of money. However, this in and of itself is not sufficient reason for the huge percentage of college students leaving Christianity.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The history of science is basically one big mess of the majority trampling on the minority, regardless of the fact that the minority is often right. Science is not supposed to be about concensus, but rather what's observable, demonstratable, and/or testable and therefore probably true.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:28 pm
by edburley
why do you keep talking about evolution?


I believe in Creationism - just NOT in 6 literal 24-hour days!

Again, as I said before, it is hard to take you seriously when you can't even deal with my point.

You are arguing against someone who is not here - this mystical evolutionist. Engage me, please!

To me, this is evidence of what I speak. Government schools fail to teach critical thinking, they are all about indoctrination. As long as homeschoolers do not teach children that there are a variety of ways to look at science, all without denying scripture, the children will be at a disadvantage. All they will be able to do is regurgitate the same straw man arguments that you have not addressed my position one single time, all you have argued against is Atheistic Evolution, and that not so well...

You have made my point, sir. For if you had critical thinking skills, you would have engaged my arguments rather than pulling out the "Ken Ham Book of Silly Scientific Arguments" and simply restating the lame, unscientific and unbiblical arguments of Mr. Ham.

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:04 am
by Theodore
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.

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:15 am
by edburley
Theodore wrote: I'm not trying to attack you or call you something you aren't, I'm just very confused here.

Really? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? I am not a Darwinian evolutionist - period. I have friends who are, and I disagree with them.

Have you read any other biblical works on creation other than Morris or Ham? Have you ever looked into opposing views?

First of all, you say that I have to do this or that, but I do not. You on the other hand need to explain some things:

1) if the universe is 6,000 years old, how can the light from stars millions of light years away have reached the earth already?

2) Considering the size of the Ark, how could two, and in some cases seven, of every single species on earth have fit?

3) if physical death did not come until after Adam's sin, were there no carnivores on planet earth? Even the plants, which are alive, could not have experienced death, and therefore could not have been eaten, so even herbivores were not allowed to eat.

4) explain how one flood created MULTIPLE layers of strata, in which there is no mixture of fossils?

You see, these are just a FEW of hundreds of questions that are not able to be answered by the likes of Mr. Ham. Millions of Christians everywhere in the world have been tricked into believing that either you agree with Ham, or with Darwin. There is no middle ground, in their belief (as is evidenced by your ridiculous assertions).

There is middle ground, and theologians from ages past have believed these things - and many still do today.

You asked me about why eons were "necessary." I didn't say that eons were necessary - I said that the earth is millions, and perhaps billions of years old. Why did God do it this way? I don't know, His ways are beyond our finding out, He does whatsoever He pleases, and in God's economy "a day is but a thousand years, and a thousand like a day."

I would recommend visiting the website "Answers in Creation." They have a wide variety of opinions, but all are based on scholarly research - at least what I've read.

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:12 pm
by Theodore
Interesting questions.

1) Well, there are two possibilities here. First, God could have just created the light where it needed to be:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Second, the speed of light varies according to gravitational field, and the universe is expanding with us more or less at the center (that's why most stars are red shifted). If the unverse was more compact in the past, then the speed of light could have been significantly faster, plus there wouldn't have been nearly as far to go.

2) You're confusing the modern environmentalist definition of "species" with the Biblical definition of kinds. There are almost unlimited variations that can be bred from just a few kinds of animal that haven't experienced significant genetic loss, so there's no reason to, for instance, take more than two dogs onto the ark - you don't need a bulldog, a poodle, and a great dane.

One thing you perhaps forgot to ask as well was how you fit even one pair of dinosaurs onto the ark. Dinosaurs are lizards, meaning they grow their entire lives. So young dinosaurs could be quite small. The reason everything grew so huge before the Flood was it lived much longer - possibly due to a higher atmospheric pressure and more oxygen. Ice core samples bear this out.

3) There's nothing in the Bible saying plants, or at least parts of plants, were off-limits before the Flood. We know Adam and Even ate fruit from the Garden of Eden. And all carnivores can live on a proper vegetarian diet if necessary - I've seen several articles on lions that have been brought up without ever being given meat, and are perfectly healthy and don't attack other animals. They even refuse to eat food that has had meat sauce put on it.

4) Sediment-carrying flows put down layers of rock sideways, not bottom to top. You get all the strata and sub-strata you see in cliff faces today, and depending on currents, you might even get several overall layers of deposits. I saw this in action in the video of that study I was talking about. Inside the strata, of course, fossils are arranged more or less smallest to largest (could have something to do with surface area), with smallest being at the bottom. All you have to do is look at the aftermath of Mount St. Helens to observe this. Lots of sedimentary rock and fossils.


Bottom line, none of this is evidence for the world being billions or even millions of years old. And Morris and Ham are hardly the entire spectrum - there are actually quite a few scientists and some actual science involved in this as well. You just don't hear about it much because evolutionists and their old-Earth collaborators have the majority, and as usual with science, are using that majority to keep everyone else out. The definition of reputable is getting printed in a major scientific journal, and you can't get printed if you don't make it past peer review, and you can't get past peer review if you don't agree with established doctrine. It's circular logic.

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:59 pm
by edburley
Oh gee! I'm so glad that you gave me the exact same answers that have been refuted by actual geologists and astronomists. Gee, when I asked those questions, I had no idea that the young earth creationists actually had fabricated answers to those questions. It never dawned on me that you could ever actually come up with a lame answer...(dripping with sarcasm).

Your answers have little to no scientific basis. Every answer you have given involves "could have..." "might have..." "it's possible..."

On top of that your first answer about species is absolutely ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that Noah took two non-descript dogs on the ark, they bred and had a litter of pups consisting of a bulldog, a terrier, a great dane, an irish setter, a labrador retriever and a shnauzer. Then those dogs from the same litter bred and created the 3 or 4 thousand dog breeds in the world. Can you answer me this...did they also give birth to a fox, a coyote and a wolf...or two each?

Do you realize that most dog breeds today are the result of breeding (thus the word "breeds")? And that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the different species...(biblical or otherwise).

Obviously, it does no good to talk to this bunch here. My original point was that Ken Ham is blaming old earth creationism for people leaving the church. Not one single person has addressed the MULTITUDE of Christians over the centuries who embraced an old earth (like Spurgeon). Are we to believe that Spurgeon was a non-believer?

I'm done here. Anyone who has critical thinking skills will be able to read these posts and see the bankruptcy of the young earth "science." One trip to the Museum in Ohio should convince the masses that it is not only untenable, but laughable.

For the record, even William Jennings Bryan, the Christian attorney who argued against the evolutionists in the Scopes Trial, was an old earth creationist.

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:42 pm
by Theodore
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.

Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 am
by Buggzz
edburley wrote:... On top of that your first answer about species is absolutely ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that Noah took two non-descript dogs on the ark, they bred and had a litter of pups consisting of a bulldog, a terrier, a great dane, an irish setter, a labrador retriever and a shnauzer. Then those dogs from the same litter bred and created the 3 or 4 thousand dog breeds in the world. Can you answer me this...did they also give birth to a fox, a coyote and a wolf...or two each?

Do you realize that most dog breeds today are the result of breeding (thus the word "breeds")? And that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the different species...(biblical or otherwise).

Obviously, it does no good to talk to this bunch here. ...

Sorry I missed this discussion. :)
I'm not sure what is meant by the previous quote. It is understood by our discovery of DNA and multiple species of a 'kind of animal', that assures us of 2 original parent dogs. Otherwise they would be unable to interbreed.