Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Christianity incompatible with evolution theory?
-
21-01-2007 12:51am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Scofflaw wrote:Actually, at this stage, we tend to think Creationists choose to proclaim a 'literal' reading of the Bible for lots of other reasons. It's pretty clear that they don't read the Bible literally at all - they just pick and choose what they want to claim is literal, and interpret it to their preference. Mostly, what they seem to want is 'scientific validation' for their faith, and they don't much seem to care how they get it (leaving aside those who simply assume it).
Old Earth Creationists would be very welcome on the extremely long thread - your opponent of choice would probably be wolfsbane, who argues on Scripture rather than science (which is JC's special interest). Most of the argument is, I'll grant you, scientific or pseudo-scientific, but there is plenty of scriptural reference, since even we atheists think the YEC position can't be backed up Biblically.
If you want to discuss "more to do with what the bible actually says about the creation of the earth", then you will have to run a very tight ship, and possibly even request that certain posters (myself included) stay out of the thread.
If you'd prefer not to have 'atheist evolutionists' and YECs arguing every toss of the coin with you, you can refer the matter to the mods. Worth noting, however, that one of the mods is a Young Earth Creationist, so you'd be asking him to exclude himself.
Who were you actually hoping to discuss with?
cordially,
Scofflaw
I agree Scofflaw, keep this thread to a biblical discussion of origins. I quite enjoyed the OP. Great food for thought.
I don't want to keep anyone out of the discussion, yourself included, but let's keep science out of this thread.
If we all agree to this stipulation, we are good to go.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
> [...] let's keep science out of this thread.
I remember making a suggestion a while ago on the other creationist thread about replacing the word "science" with the word "knowledge" which means more or less the same thing. The suggestion unfortunately springs to mind when I read sentences like this one
0 -
robindch wrote:> [...] let's keep science out of this thread.
I remember making a suggestion a while ago on the other creationist thread about replacing the word "science" with the word "knowledge" which means more or less the same thing. The suggestion unfortunately springs to mind when I read sentences like this one
Science is only one source of knowledge - there is also revelation, scripture, experience, logic, dialectic - and others according to taste. You may or may not consider these as trustworthy, but others do. Simply replacing 'science' with 'knowledge' legitimises only your point of view.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
robindch wrote:...the word "science" with the word "knowledge" which means more or less the same thing.
Rob, the ghost of AJ Ayer broke into your house and used your computer last night. I thought positivism had become extinct. Can you scientifically verify your claim and if not, does it make it a/knowledge?
0 -
-
-
-
-
> If there is some wider term that takes in geology, biology, etc [...] feel
> free to specify it - usually they are collectively referred to as science.
Yes, but I find it difficult, if not impossible, to compartmentalize reasoning and information in this way. Why should one branch of "knowledge" (however you define it) stand separately from all others, and not subject to the same logical and factual restrictions and requirements? Makes no sense at all and doesn't seem to do much than legitimize wishful thinking...
> Science has an ordinary definition - I think you are the one trying for a
> self-serving definition here, I'm afraid.
Yes, that's my point
> You do not, and neither do I, so we cannot be part of the debate.
Fine -- we just ask questions which refer to the plentiful internal contradictions in the bible.
Here's a quick one. How did god manage to have morning, day, evening and night before he created the sun on the fourth "day"?0 -
robindch wrote:> If there is some wider term that takes in geology, biology, etc [...] feel
> free to specify it - usually they are collectively referred to as science.
Yes, but I find it difficult, if not impossible, to compartmentalize reasoning and information in this way. Why should one branch of "knowledge" (however you define it) stand separately from all others, and not subject to the same logical and factual restrictions and requirements? Makes no sense at all and doesn't seem to do much than legitimize wishful thinking...
> Science has an ordinary definition - I think you are the one trying for a
> self-serving definition here, I'm afraid.
Yes, that's my point
> You do not, and neither do I, so we cannot be part of the debate.
Fine -- we just ask questions which refer to the plentiful internal contradictions in the bible.
Here's a quick one. How did god manage to have morning, day, evening and night before he created the sun on the fourth "day"?
If this were a discussion on the finer points of a book I disliked, I would not consider it polite to insist on interrupting the discussion to point out plot holes, bad writing, and how little I thought of it....
At the end of the day, this is the Christianity forum. In addition, the OP has asked specifically to restrict the discussion to Biblical exegesis. Raising these contradictions, nearly all of which have been raised elsewhere, is not exegesis.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
> Raising these contradictions, nearly all of which have been raised
> elsewhere, is not exegesis.
I don't recall that particular one coming up before, but fair enough anyway -- over to somebody else for some exegesis 0 -
robindch wrote:> Raising these contradictions, nearly all of which have been raised
> elsewhere, is not exegesis.
I don't recall that particular one coming up before, but fair enough anyway -- over to somebody else for some exegesis
Pretty certain it's on the Big Thread - Wicknight, I think. Anyway, note my neat cop-out of 'nearly all'!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:I agree Scofflaw, keep this thread to a biblical discussion of origins. I quite enjoyed the OP. Great food for thought.
I don't want to keep anyone out of the discussion, yourself included, but let's keep science out of this thread.
If we all agree to this stipulation, we are good to go.
.....the OEC, PC and TE positions present both scientific and scriptural arguments - so you may find it difficult to stick to the restriction of 'sola scriptura'.:D0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi, Jizzy.
Good to hear from you. Sorry I took so long to respond - things have been busy for me.
You said:
It certainly would be wrong to so treat all OECs or TEs, for ignorance of the implications may be pleaded for many. It is those who knowingly set aside parts of the Bible as not God-breathed who are compromisers or unbelievers.By doing this they completely ignore St Paul's teachings that when two people disagree over nonfundamental doctrine they 'should let each be fully convinced in his own mind'(Romans 14:5). I have no problem with people believing in YEC. I'll go to church with them, receive the eucharist with them, worship with them, etc. I may regard YEC as both theologically and scientifically unsound, but it does not make those creationists any less Christian. I do not like it however when some YECs imply that Old Earth Creationists(OECs) or Theistic Evolutionists(TEs) are 'compromisers' or less 'christian' just because they do not accept their interpretation of the creation narratives.
I would like to hear such an interpretation, as any other than the current consensus seems to be treated as ‘rubbish science’. As this thread is sticking to the theological arguments, I would not want to challenge your model as such, just to understand it more fully.I am a progressive creationist, and as such I believe that evolution happened. I would not interpret the fossil evidence like a neo-Darwinist would,
Natural selection and adaption is undeniable. Is that what you mean?but an evolutionary change among species is undeniable.
Who said the creatures were instantaneously materialised? Creationists hold that God used the dust of the ground to produce both beast and man. Not primal soup warmed over a billion or so years, but plain old earth in the course of one day.However it is also likely that God intervened in the process. The bible does in fact indicate that God allowed nature to produce species. Genesis says that God ordered the 'earth' to produce the beasts of the land and that God said "let the earth sprout vegetation". Note that it was not a direct magical act of creation. It happened progessively.
Here’s what the Bible actually says:
Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Yes, as ‘species’ is used by biologists today. It’s just a name. The Bible is saying that men produced men, apes produced apes, spiders produced spiders.It says He created the animals after their 'kinds' or 'min' in Hebrew. These 'kinds' are in fact broader than a single species.
I’m open to correction, but I thought all YECs would hold to that. OEC, while believing in a recent creation of life in 6 Days, hold that the universe may be much older. Some believe there was a prior creation of life that was destroyed before this 6 Day creation began.Many of the YECs claim that the bible teaches that the universe must have been created in six literal days.
Your proof:The bible does not teach that the earth was created in six literal days.
Quite so - but all this proves is that can be used to mean time other than a 24 hour day, not that it is not used to denote a 24 hour day. Look at its use here:For example the YECs claim that Genesis 13 where it tells us that 'there was evening and there was morning, a third day' or in the Hebrew textוַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם" שְׁלִישִׁי." refers to a literal 24 hour day. But the Hebrew word 'yom' or (in hebrew) 'יוֹם' can mean both a day and a period of time. It can also refer to an age of time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines yom as "1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)." Even in Genesis 1:5 we see yom used to denote a 12-hour time period "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night". Yom is used throughout the bible to non 24 hour periods of time. Moses(the author of Genesis) even writes in Psalms 90.6 that "In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away." Yet obviously both the 'evening' and 'morning' here are in refence to the life cycle of a plant. In Genesis 2.4 it sums up all the six days of creation as one day "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.". In Genesis 4:3 yom is used to represent an age of time: "And in process of time(yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."
Genesis 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Day (time period) = an evening and a morning, indicated by a period of darkness followed by light. This period further classified as Day (period of light) and Night (period of darkness). So a day of creation was made up of a day and night, just as we use those terms today.
Confidence -10. Logic - 0. See my previous comment.Clearly the 'days' used in Genesis were periods of time and not 24 hour days.
Not meaningless. Just that it has not restrain on Him. To go with your argument, we would have to say the references to time, e.g., regarding the death and resurrection of Christ, or the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost can not be the literal time periods ascribed to them.As God created time, He is not subject to it, therefore a 'day' in His sight would be meaningless.
First, the Hebrew shamayim erets is translated as the heavens and the earth, not just the earth. Next, given that the heavens refers to everything outside our atmosphere, it does not preclude the idea that space was empty to begin with, just as the earth was. God later created the Sun, moon and stars.The claim that Genesis that the bible teaches that the earth was created before the stars and the sun is oft made. However this is unbiblical. The 'earth' denoted the entire universe, not the earth in its modern form as the Hebrew shamayim erets always refers to the entire universe.
So are you saying man crawled up the evolutionary ladder, suffering and dying over countless millenia, to the spot where he became human/God implanted a soul? At this point he became physically immortal, not subject to sickness and death, while the rest of creation bled and died around him? This is God’s idea of ‘very good’?YECs also make the claim that there was no death before the fall of mankind. They base this very flawed doctrine on what St Paul said in Romans 5.12: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". However to assume this refers to animals is an exegetical fallacy. Paul's statement makes it clear that death spread to mankind because of sin. Animals do not sin, therefore there is no reason why they would not have died before the fall. This would not trouble God.
Yes, He did - after the Fall!He even killed animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve.
This Psalm could also be referring to the post-Flood event. It was the beginning of a new world. In fact, this is the explicit teaching of the apostle Peter:Contrary to what the YECs preach, the bible says Noah's flood was a local event, not a global one. Psalms 104.9 aka the creation psalm tells us that after God created the earth He set a line that the waters could not cross, You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth. Obviously this would mean that there could never be a literal global flood again.
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
But ‘eretz’ is used of the whole earth, for example:The hebrew words used in the narratives for all the earth is 'kol eretz'. Kol meaning all, and eretz means land, earth, ground etc. These words are used many times in the bible to refer to a local area. For example, Genesis 2:13 says that "the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush". Had God wanted to refer to the whole earth, He could have used the word tebel, which is used throughout the OT, but never in reference to the flood.
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
As to ‘tebel’, Davidson points out:
This word is never used in the Flood narrative. But it should be pointed out that tebel is never used in the entire Pentateuch, including the creation account. In fact, the term appears no where in the narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible, but only in poetic texts (39 times) usually as a poetic synonym in parallel with haÉares "the earth." http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm
This doesn’t solve your problem:Some YECs also make the claim that the flood could not rise 15 cubits above the mountain described in Genesis. However the Hebrew word used is 'har'. This can also be used to describe an mound, a hill, a lump of dirt etc. Har Maggedo(Armagaddeon) isn't really big either.
Davidson puts it well:
‘The covering of "all the high mountains" by at least 15 cubits (Genesis 7:19-20) could not involve simply a local flood, since water seeks its own level across the surface of the globe. Even one high mountain covered in a local Mesopotamian setting would require that same height of water everywhere on the planet's surface.’
‘The duration of the Flood makes sense only with a universal flood. The Deluge of rain from above and water from the fountains of the deep below continued 40 days (Genesis 7:17), and all the highest mountains were still covered five months after the Flood began; the tops of the mountains were not seen until after seven months, and the Flood waters were not dried up enough for Noah to leave the ark until one year and ten days had passed (see Genesis 7:11; 8:14). Such lengths of time seem commensurate only with a universal and not a local flood.’
And of course it raises the question as to the need for such a massive ship and its cargo of species:
‘the universality of the Flood is underscored by the enormous size of the ark detailed in Genesis 6:14-15 and the stated necessity for saving all the kinds of animals and plants in the ark (Genesis 6:16-21; 7:2-3). A massive ark filled with representatives of all non-aquatic animal/plant kinds would be unnecessary if this were only a local flood, for these kinds could have been preserved elsewhere in the world. Yet the divine insistence in the biblical record is that the animals were brought into the ark to preserve representatives of all of the various kinds (Genesis 6:19-20).’
Certainly, the Biblical description of the creation of the stars suggests they were not merely instantaneously materialised, but were flung out at the moment of their creation. I’m not familiar with the physics of the Big Bang, but as it incorporates the Earth in its scenario, obviously that contradicts the Bible.Finally many YECs preach that the big bang theory is incompatible with the bible. The Big Bang theory was in fact founded by a Jesuit priest, Msnr Georges-Henri Lemaître. There is no inherent contradiction between Big Bang theory and the bible. Both state the universe came into being at some point in time. In fact, previous to BBT most scientists believed the universe was eternal, which would have ruled out theism. The Bible also states several times that the universe was 'stretched' out at its creation. God says in Isaiah 45:12 “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens" and Isaiah 42.5 where it says "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out". There is no contradiction between accepting the Big Bang Theory and the biblical account of creation.0 -
Jizzy
I am a progressive creationist, and as such I believe that evolution happened. I would not interpret the fossil evidence like a neo-Darwinist would,
How do you interpret the fossil evidence then????
What IS the difference, or is there any REAL difference between a ‘Progressive Creationist’ and a ‘Theistic Evolutionist’???
Jizzy
However it is also likely that God intervened in the process.
When, where or how, did God 'intervene in the process' – and are you saying that God is still intervening?
Where does it say in the Bible that God used evolution to perfect life?
Jizzy
It says He created the animals after their 'kinds' or 'min' in Hebrew. These 'kinds' are in fact broader than a single species.
Yes, indeed the 'Created Kind' is significantly broader classification that a modern 'Species'.
A Created Kind is a group of organisms that approximates to the genus level of taxonomic nomenclature. Examples include the Dog Kind (Canis, Fennecus & Lycacaon), the Horse Kind (Equus), the Big Cat Kind (Panthera), the Cattle Kind (Bos, Bison, Bubalus & Syncerus) and the Rhinoceros Kind (Didermocerous, Dicerous & Rhinoceros).
All members of a Created Kind share similar general physiognomies and many species within a Kind can interbreed with each other, although usually only in captivity and with sterile offspring resulting.
The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
The scientific study of the Created Kind is called Baraminology.
Here are just a few links to information on this topic
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/systbib.html
Jizzy
The bible does not teach that the earth was created in six literal days. For example the YECs claim that Genesis 13 where it tells us that 'there was evening and there was morning, a third day' or in the Hebrew textוַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם" שְׁלִישִׁי." refers to a literal 24 hour day. But the Hebrew word 'yom' or (in hebrew) 'יוֹם' can mean both a day and a period of time. It can also refer to an age of time.
Yes the word ‘Yom’ can mean a literal day OR a longer period of time.
However, the Hebrew word for Day “Yom” (when it is accompanied by a number, as in first, second, etc.) is ALWAYS a literal day EVERYWHERE else in the Bible and so there is no reason to believe that it is not a 24 HOUR day in Genesis 1 as well.
Equally, Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of Creation – again indicating that these were real 24 HOUR days because an ‘evening’ or a ‘morning’ is completely meaningless if the DAYS of Creation were actually EONS of Evolutionary Time.
Exodus 20:11 re-emphasises that the basis for the 7 day working week is the 7 day Creation Week – just in case anybody missed the point in Genesis 1 that the Days of Creation were 24 hour days.
The “Theistic Evolutionary” concept of a “Creation Week” lasting 7,000 million year is certainly quite a novelty!!! I would hate to be waiting for the weekend to come around if an Evolutionary time-frame applied to our working week!!:D
Of course, God COULD create the Universe and all living organisms in 6 seconds, in 6 days or over 6 billion years. He has told us that it was 6 days – and all observed phenomena support a rapid Creation and a young Earth. That is good enough for me – until somebody shows me repeatably observable evidence i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.
BTW, for a DAY to exist the Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a discrete source of light (confirmed by Gen 1:3 as provided by God Himself for the first three Days of Creation).
From the Fourth Day of Creation onwards the Sun did mark times and seasons including DAYS on Earth!!!
God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – even BEFORE the Sun was created – a good example of God’s DIVINE MAJESTY in action.
It is also a statement by God that HE is more important than any astronomical object, including the Sun.
The ability and willingness of God to provide physical light is also confirmed in the prophecy of Rev 22:5 about the future New Heaven and New Earth where “there will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.”
Jizzy
In Genesis 2.4 it sums up all the six days of creation as one day "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.". In Genesis 4:3 yom is used to represent an age of time: "And in process of time(yom) it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Clearly the 'days' used in Genesis were periods of time and not 24 hour days
Yes, the term ‘Yom’ ON IT’S OWN can mean a period of time in excess of 24 hours or a literal 24 hour day …….
……..and in the above examples from Gen 2:4 and 4:3 the word ‘Yom’ does indicate a period of time that is greater than 24 hours.
However the term ‘Yom’ as used in Genesis 1 denotes a period of one literal day or 24 hours – see my previous post above.
Jizzy
As God created time, He is not subject to it, therefore a 'day' in His sight would be meaningless.
……but the Genesis account wasn’t written FOR God – but BY God for a Humanity that exists in time.:D
Jizzy
As prophet Moses says in Psalms 90.4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night"
Yes, indeed from God’s doubly ETERNAL perspective a thousand years is but a ‘blink of His eye’.
……….but when God is addressing people (for whom one thousand years is 365,250 days) the distinction between days and millions of years is very real – and very important!!!:cool:
Jizzy
and also St Peter in 2 Peter 3.8 "A thousand years is as one day".
Go on and read the REMAINDER of this passage of scripture - and see how it ALSO confirms that to God “one day is the same as a thousand years” – and so God can do in one day what otherwise could take a thousand, or indeed a billion years!!!!:eek:
Jizzy
The Bible also teaches that the seventh day is continous. In Hebrews 4:4 it says " For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work" but in Hebrews 4:6 it says "It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience."
The Bible confirms that God entered His rest on the seventh day of Creation – and His REST continues up to now.
God went into His rest on the seventh day - and He has remained in His rest (from Creation) for the past 2.6 MILLION days!!!:D
......and the fact that God has remained in His rest from Creation is another Biblical confirmation that God didn't Create / Evolve any life since Creation Week!!!:eek:
Jizzy
Some of the YECs also make the claim that an old earth interpretation is not only compatible with scripture, but also incompatible with science(this is particularly rich coming from them).
If you are so confident about the scientific backing for the PC and TE positions why have you asked that scientific issues not be discussed on this thread????
Jizzy
The claim that Genesis that the bible teaches that the earth was created before the stars and the sun is oft made. However this is unbiblical. The 'earth' denoted the entire universe, not the earth in its modern form as the Hebrew shamayim erets always refers to the entire universe.
HOW do you then explain plant life being Created on the third day – while the Sun and the stars were created on the FOURTH day???:D
Let’s examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation as being EONS of Evolutionary Time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis 1 account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.
If the FIRST DAY of Creation was actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.
The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space AND the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!
The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while Evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust – with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process incidentally).
The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and life started with MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants – while Evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.
The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and the Stars were created, i.e. AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while Evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.
The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic life (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while Evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because Evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’ and land mammals weren’t created until the SIXTH DAY according to Genesis 1.
The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates that INVERTEBRATES were amongst the earliest multi-cellular creatures to evolve and reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the SAME day as all of the other land-based animals.
I hasten to add, that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF Evolution is TRUE
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.
IF God WAS the guiding force behind the postulated Conventional Evolutionary Sequence then when He came to provide an account of His activities in Genesis 1, He didn’t just merely become ‘metaphorical or allegorical’ – He completely ‘lost the plot’ and gave such a ‘mixed up’ account that even a 10 year old Evolutionist would reject it.
I fear that many “10 year old Evolutionists” and indeed some considerably older ones, no longer trust the veracity of the Bible for this very reason.
Indeed, if a plain reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?
The idea that Genesis was a ‘simple account of Creation for a simple people’ is also patently preposterous – the people who built the Pyramids in Egypt were certainly NOT ‘a simple people’.
The fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of Evolution, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been well within the abilities of even a so-called ‘simple people’ to understand.
Equally, the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any difficulties understanding the concept of Evolution – so why would the Israelites have any difficulties comprehending it either – if it was TRUE?
If we conclude that Genesis is based on the erroneous personal opinions of Moses, then because Jesus Christ gave Moses His wholehearted endorsement in Mt 5:17-18 and Lk 16:16-17 this means that the entire basis of Christianity i.e. the Infallible Divinity of Jesus Christ is ‘on the line’ here. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV) The fact that ALL SCRIPTURE (i.e. the entire Bible, including Genesis) is “God breathed” is also confirmed in II Tim 3:16.
IF 'big picture' Evolution is true – then no amount of ‘allegorising’ will solve the problem!!!!.
On the other hand, Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.
In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a rational, coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and of Mankind.
We have a choice – to believe that ‘pond scum evolved into Man’ over billions of years – or to believe that the Sovereign Creator God DID create the Universe and all life in SIX DAYS just like He said He did in Ex 20:11 (and Genesis 1). :cool: 0
Advertisement