Creationism or Evolutionism.

What do you believe and why? Here's the place to discuss anything relating to church and God.
Post Reply
User avatar
Belle
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4997
Joined: May 2012
Location: Spoilers!
Contact:

Creationism or Evolutionism.

Post

Pound Foolish made an interesting post, and I thought that it deserved its own topic.

Here is his quote
Pound Foolish wrote:Creationism is interesting, but not always entirely accurate. In any case, evolution doesn't contradict the Bible. Of course, macro-evolution is absurd, and almost certainly untrue, but as I say, it doesn't contradict the Bible. Micro-evolution, on a side note, obviously does exist. (Man, that should get a response. I'm glad Hannah's not back yet, she'd rake me over the coals. ;))
So, I would like to debate/discuss this with whomever is interested. And, Pound Foolish, I am interested in knowing more about what you believe. Do you believe in 6 literal days? And a global flood?
Image
~Queen Belle of Altanovia, Knight of Montreal & Order of Aristotle, Benevolent Dictator, Catspaw of the SS, & Dan's couch troll~
~"I’ve always found you to be a good person to disagree with." - Eleventh Doctor~
User avatar
Tea Ess
Pineapple Whip
Posts: 3584
Joined: May 2012
Location: Michigan

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Yes!! One of my favorite subjects! Thank you Godsgirl and Pound Foolish!

I am a creationist, believing in 6 literal days, and a global flood.

Not to be overly obrusive, Pound Foolish, but I think it's very hard to only accept one aspect of evolution (macro) without accepting the whole shebang. I like to compare old earth age and macro evolution to a chicken and an egg. If you accept one idea, the other one is bound to come eventually. Either first evolution creeps in, and then old age is accepted, or old age is accepted, and then comes evolution.

Even though they go hand-in-hand, I'll start with old age, and go from there depending on the next posts. As a note, I am not particularly studied in these areas. I have picked up facts and ideas here and there, but I am not an expert in any one of these topics. I do believe that God purposely equipped all of us with brains, and He intends us to use them, so I will be doing as such. So, in advance, I apologize for any misinterpreted/mis-communicated ideas on my part, and for any mistakes in facts.

My first and foremost problem with old age is that it muddles and invalidates much of the Old Testament. If we accept millions and billions of years, that means we basically have to ignore the 6 literal days and the genealogy given. At a first glance, this doesn't appear to make that much of an impact. However, if we excuse the first days of creation, that means excusing our first ancestor as a real being, and also the original sin. If we excuse the original sin as myth, then doesn't that mean that God did not create this world as perfect, opening the door to question His perfection.

My problem with old age is that it leads to the dismissing of the first Adam, and then can go on to our relationship with the last Adam. I find that old age causes us to doubt our trust in the Bible. If there are millions of hidden years in there somewhere, then it opens the door for us to say anything we want about those missing years.

Pound Foolish: I agree with you that the Bible does not have a statement in it saying "Evolution is completely and entirely false, ect." However, the Bible does contradict the ideas of Evolution. (Note, henceforth, I will give macro-evolution a capital E, and micro-evolution a lower case e.) If we step back from all of the facts and details being discovered and debated all over the world, we come down to this:

On the one side, we have Evolution, and on the other, we have Creation, the idea that we are created in God's image. Evolution teaches us that we are here for no specific purpose, we have free reign to do whatever we wish. We evolved randomly from pond scum, and therefore are here by random chance. There is no morality besides what we create for ourselves. There is no hope of afterlife, we will simply decompose, providing valuable nutrients for other creatures to evolve (Hey! There's a purpose!). Evolution also teaches that some of us are farther along the evolving process than others. We have complete dominion of these, and we can do whatever we wish with our planet and those in it. Natural Selection is 'survival of the fittest'. Is this what we want to live by?

On the other side, we have the idea that we were created purposefully, in God's image. We have an intentional purpose on this planet, and we are all equal under the eyes of God. We are surrounded by order and reason, opening the door for science and invention. We are governed, and will be judged, according to laws of morality we can all (try) to follow. We have hope of eternal life with our Creator, through a relationship with his Son. We all have the opportunity to accept His gift. He has entrusted us with the care of this planet and its inhabitants, expecting us to both care for and use wisely. Instead of survival only for the fit, true life is offered for everyone, but it is their choice to accept it.

So, that was my attempt to put something in a nutshell, and I turned it into a couple of paragraphs.

So, Pound Foolish, I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I know that you aren't completely advocating for Evolution. You brought up some good points. My point is that it is almost impossible to accept one piece of Evolution without accepting all of it. Does anyone else have a view on what was said?
"Happy Birthday to Hot Leaf Water Ess!" - Belle
User avatar
Belle
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4997
Joined: May 2012
Location: Spoilers!
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I honestly haven't researched the different pieces of evolution. I think that I agree with you on that T.S., but I am not sure.

I also agree with the thought of a young earth. My sunday school teacher believes in an old earth, and once, my friend and I had a debate (sort of) with him. It was quite fun. Here is some of the points I brought up, complete with references.

The whole of the creation restored … to what?
The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world's creation

~The moon is slowly drawing away from the earth, at the rate of 4 cm/year. 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been 12 miles closer to the earth. However, 1.4 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the earth. Another problem is that once the moon was as close as 11,500 miles away from Earth, it would enter Earth’s Roche Limit and be shattered by Earth’s gravity.

~Comets are basically big balls of dirty ice that orbit the sun. Whenever their orbit nears the sun, they melt a little. If the earth were billions of years old, the comets would be all melted. One theory that scientists have is an Oort Cloud that replenishes Comets, but no evidence exists for such a thing.

~Spiral Galaxies are just that: galaxies that are in a spiral shape. Our own galaxy, The Milky Way, is a spiral galaxy. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the galaxy rotate faster than the outer regions. As time goes on, the galaxy is getting all twisted up, and eventually will no longer be recognized as a spiral. If the universe were billions of years old, we would not see the spiral shape in galaxies, as we do.

~Canyons can form very quickly. Engineer’s canyon, for example, is located on Mount St. Helens, Washington. It was cut from mudflow after the eruption on March 19, 1982. This canyon is about 100 feet deep!

~It is also evident that rocks can form very quickly. People have found a petrified boot, sack of flour, and a clock. If it is proven that rocks can form quickly, why do scientists say that it takes billions of years?


Astronomy and the Bible. Produced by Mike Riddle. AiG, 2004.

Wright, David. "Feedback: Lunar Recession, Does it support a young universe." Answers in Genesis, 11 August 2006 <http://www.answersingenesis.org/go/lunar-recession>

Ham, Ken ed. The New Answers Book 2. Arizona: Master Books, 2008.


I do have more if anyone is interested.
Image
~Queen Belle of Altanovia, Knight of Montreal & Order of Aristotle, Benevolent Dictator, Catspaw of the SS, & Dan's couch troll~
~"I’ve always found you to be a good person to disagree with." - Eleventh Doctor~
User avatar
Aaron Wiley
Pistachio
Posts: 1009
Joined: May 2012
Location: Touring Canada and the USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I believe the Bible and Science work together perfectly.
Like PF said, Micro-evolution doesn't contradict the Bible. Not only that, but it's scientifically observable. Macro evolution and Micro are too very different things. The main difference is, that one has been observed and we know to be accurate, the other is simply wishful thinking. Creationism doesn't even deny micro evolution, it's just part of the way things work.
"I strive to be an Elephant" - Odyssey Fan Wiley
User avatar
gabbygirl17
Mint Chocolate Chip
Posts: 2065
Joined: May 2012
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I believe in creation in the Bible. We were created to serve God. but we do have choice about accepting Christ.
"Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts." - Jeremiah 15:16
User avatar
Smile Awhile
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 362
Joined: May 2012
Location: Earth

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Ask me any evolutionary question, and I almost guarantee I can answer it, but I prefer it in PM. :)
What do you want here? You can move along to the next post now; nothing fun here in my signature.
User avatar
ArnoldtheRubberDucky
Butter Pecan
Posts: 2912
Joined: June 2012
Location: Unknown
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

gabbygirl17 wrote:I believe in creation in the Bible. We were created to serve God. but we do have choice about accepting Christ.
I don't believe you are exactly addressing the point, gabby. Everyone on here believes that the earth was created by God and we are here to serve him, but what PF is saying is that Micro-evolution does not exactly contradict the Bible and it is possible that it could be at least partially true.

I'm pretty sure I agree with T.S. on this one, anyway. I have nothing else to say beyond that.
Sir Arnold, Knight of the Order of Augustine, Debate Vampire
Mr. Yorp wrote:You don't need a degree to shovel manure.
User avatar
Smile Awhile
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 362
Joined: May 2012
Location: Earth

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Micro-evolution IS true. Macro-evolution is not.


The following is to see what "flash" is.


[flash=]Hi.[/flash]
What do you want here? You can move along to the next post now; nothing fun here in my signature.
User avatar
Odysseygirl101
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 454
Joined: August 2012
Location: Somewhere between Oz, Marus, Burke, Atlantis, Narnia, Tatooine, Chewandswallow, Avonlea, and Odyssey

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I'm agreeing with T.S. You really can't get one kind of evolution without the other. I'm not saying people who beleive that way are evil,, but it's like Jesus said. You can't serve two masters. You hate one or love the other or vice versa. Any other way just doesn't work; it's black and white.
Oz the Great and Powerful is Great and Powerful!!!!
User avatar
whittaker96
Caramel Crunch
Posts: 105
Joined: July 2012
Location: the Bay Area, California
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Come take a humorous, modern look at Odyssey, reviewing, discovering, and applying w/ Out of Control in Odyssey and Candid KOnversations! Join the odyssey to find the real Odyssey.

http://odysseyoutofcontrol.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Aaron Wiley
Pistachio
Posts: 1009
Joined: May 2012
Location: Touring Canada and the USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Odysseygirl101 wrote:I'm agreeing with T.S. You really can't get one kind of evolution without the other. I'm not saying people who beleive that way are evil,, but it's like Jesus said. You can't serve two masters. You hate one or love the other or vice versa. Any other way just doesn't work; it's black and white.
I think you're being incredibly naive Odysseygirl. Just because many people who call themselves "scientists" are opposing the idea of creationism, doesn't mean that science in itself goes against the fact that God created the universe. Before you try to say that "you can't get one with without the other" you need to realize the incredible difference between micro and macro evolution. Please, don't let the title "evolution" scare you off, micro-evolution is scientific fact. Macro-evolution (the idea that various creatures evolved to the point where they eventually became other creatures entirely) is simply years ago debunked theory. The only reason it's still taught in schools today, is because it's easier for some people to believe than it is for them to believe that God exists. The thing is, I think it takes a whole lot more faith to base your ideas on a theory that has little to no evidence backing it up, and many internal conflicts of even making any sense, than it does to have faith that there's simply an eternal being that created the universe in it's existence. And I believe that, however, believing that God created the universe doesn't in any way deny the existence of the science of evolution. micro-evolution is simply the way God created his creatures to be able to respond to various binomials. It doesn't fight with the ideas of creationism, it compliments them! micro-evolution is just one of the many incredibly features God crafted into his beautiful creation.

For those of you who don't know what micro evolution is, it's basically the part of the evolution that makes sense when they try to teach it in school. They talk about how Darwin observed a group of finches and how certain ones on an island he was visiting had developed different sorts of beaks so they could crack open the nuts on the island they lived on. It made sense because the ones that ended up having it in their DNA to be able to have stronger beaks were the only ones that were able to eat, so only they survived. That's how micro-evolution works, it's survival of the fittest. Where Darwin went wrong was when he decided to take this concept to a whole other level saying that this process of the fittest surviving with their special deformities could possibly eventually deform so much, they they would become a totally different creature altogether. The thing is, genetically speaking, this just doesn't work. Obviously in Darwin's day, they didn't have the science that we do now to understand that, but now we do, so it's pretty silly to continue believing that a velociraptor could turn into a turkey.

The other major fault in Macro evolution is the idea of spontaneous generation. In order for the theory of evolution to work in it's entirety, it would have to be possible for living things to come out of none living things. Scientifically, this has also been disproven. It's a nice thought, but logically it just doesn't make any sense. There's no science to back it up. At all.

There are many other faults in the the theory of macro evolution, but the thing to keep in mind is that micro-evolution doesn't fight with the idea of creationism, it's simply an extension of the same train of thought.
"I strive to be an Elephant" - Odyssey Fan Wiley
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Very well said, Aaron. However, one can go a bit farther. In fact, denying micro evolution is like denying wind. Sure, you can't see wind, but it's still pretty darn obvious it's real. To get even more the bare bones of it, micro evolution is the ability of species to develop new traits. If they couldn't, dog breeding would be impossible.
And probably the biggest whole in evolution is that there's barely any skeletons of between-species evolving creatures. If evolving into a species was the end result of evolving, you'd think there'd be more skeletons of between-species. Plus, there's no real proof that the very few cross-species we have are legitimate.
Far more less childishly simple is the theology of the matter. T.S., you claim there are only two sides. Uh-uh. I'm totally not on evolution's "side" (obviously) but the Bible never rules it out. You want to believe the world was made in seven days? Okey doke. Go right ahead, by all means.
In the original language of the text, "day" doesn't mean a twenty-four hour period.
In fact, it can mean a huge variety of things... including just being symbolic. The Bible reflects its different authors, and the information available for use. The author didn't necessarily know everything about the beginning of creation. God just revealed truth to him so he could accurately portray it. Ever notice how poetic and confusing many parts of the Old Testament are? Course you have. God trying to kill Moses? Hmmm. It's partly because the Old Testament is full of an odd symbolic way of narrating.
So then, everything in the Old Testament isn't literal.
Finally, the whole choosing between science and religion thing is total BUNK. Science is the study of our world, religion is the revelation of what our world truly is and means. Thus, they cannot contradict each other except when science is wrong. Science is almost definitely wrong in the Big Band Theory. But it isn't contradictory to the Bible. God could've made the Big Gang if he wanted. It wouldn't contradict that, poetically speaking, the world came into being in a week.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Belle
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4997
Joined: May 2012
Location: Spoilers!
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

However, the order that the big bang teaches that things came to be is wrong.

Bible
Earth before the sun
Light on earth before the sun
Earth before the stars
6,000-year-old universe
Not subject to change
Inspired by a perfect God

Big Bang
Sun before the earth
Sun before light on earth
Stars before the earth
13.7-billion-year-old universe
Subject to change and may be
totally rejected for a different model
Invented by fallible men

Also, if we are on the subject of days, do you believe in progressive creation, meaning that each "day" was actually a long time period?

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... y-six-days
Image
~Queen Belle of Altanovia, Knight of Montreal & Order of Aristotle, Benevolent Dictator, Catspaw of the SS, & Dan's couch troll~
~"I’ve always found you to be a good person to disagree with." - Eleventh Doctor~
User avatar
Aaron Wiley
Pistachio
Posts: 1009
Joined: May 2012
Location: Touring Canada and the USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Day-age inconsistencies
There are many inconsistencies in accepting the days in Genesis as long periods of time. For instance, we are told in Genesis 1:26–28 that God made the first man (Adam) on the sixth day. Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. We are told in Genesis 5:5 that he died when he was 930 years old. (We are not still in the seventh day as some people misconstrue, for Genesis 2:2 tells us God “rested” from His work of creation, not that He is resting from His work of creation.) If each day was, for example, a million years, then there are real problems. In fact, if each day were only a thousand years long, this still makes no sense of Adam’s age at death either.
Quite an interesting article...

Where did you get your numbers for the earth only being "6,000" years old though? I heard something like 10,000, but maybe that's not right either.
"I strive to be an Elephant" - Odyssey Fan Wiley
User avatar
Belle
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4997
Joined: May 2012
Location: Spoilers!
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I get most of my stuff from Answers in Genesis.

This article explains where they get the age of the earth, however, if you click on footnote #1, it does say that some creationists believe it to be 10,000-12,000 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-earth

AiG has some really interesting stuff. I suggest that you guys take a little bit to look around.
Image
~Queen Belle of Altanovia, Knight of Montreal & Order of Aristotle, Benevolent Dictator, Catspaw of the SS, & Dan's couch troll~
~"I’ve always found you to be a good person to disagree with." - Eleventh Doctor~
User avatar
Aaron Wiley
Pistachio
Posts: 1009
Joined: May 2012
Location: Touring Canada and the USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Thanks! And, as was previous stated, there's not definite method for dating how long the earth has been around, but it's not like it matters that much anyway. We at least know that it isn't over a million years old, which is absolutely critical for the theory of macro-evolution.
"I strive to be an Elephant" - Odyssey Fan Wiley
User avatar
Smile Awhile
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 362
Joined: May 2012
Location: Earth

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I believe anywhere from 6000 - 10000 years.
Yes. I believe in 6 literal 24-hour days. I back-up my theory below:


11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14. 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:

15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


The trees could not live without light from the sun for a few years. However, they could survive a single day. I rest my case.( :lol: :lol: :lol: )
What do you want here? You can move along to the next post now; nothing fun here in my signature.
User avatar
Aaron Wiley
Pistachio
Posts: 1009
Joined: May 2012
Location: Touring Canada and the USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

meh, It's an interesting argument, but not an extremely strong one. God created light before eh created the sun, who's to say that the light that existed before the sun couldn't give trees the same power to photosynthesize as light from the sun does?

I think God's girl's argument is more conclusive.
"I strive to be an Elephant" - Odyssey Fan Wiley
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

Going back a bit...
For one thing, the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, uses tonnnnns of symbolic, figurative speaking. For another, do I really need to point out to you guys that modern Hebrew simply isn't the same as it was hundreds of years ago, even if any single one of us ever bothered to learn Hebrew to read books of the Bible in their original language? And the meaning, wording, and grammar is changed even more as it is translated into modern English. And even old translations, using older English, simply can't quite line up with the original wording.
So, frankly, I'm rather bewildered by all this literal interpretation of the Bible business. I knew many protestants want to see the Bible as suuuper literal, but why? The whole Sola Scriptora thing?
Anyhow, the Creations story isn't necessarily a scientific document explaining physical details and data, like a USGS report. It's more concerned with theological issues. Like a LOT of the Bible.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
User avatar
Starflower1234
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 261
Joined: December 2012
Location: On my family's farm.

Re: Creationism or Evolution.

Post

I know this is an old topic, but I have some questions I want to ask. If I shouldn't have brought up this topic again, I'm sorry.

Pound Foolish, I want to know what you think the purpose of Genesis 1 is if it isn't literal. What about it says that it is not a literal history of the Creation of the world? And if it isn't, then why is it even in the Bible? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," If Genesis 1 isn't true, and that's not how God created the world, then why is it there?
Also, what do you believe about dinosaurs and humans? Do you think they were ever on the earth at the same time, or do you think dinosaurs died out before humans existed?

Now, about "micro-evolution". I know from what I know about genetics that mutations in the genetic code do happen, and if they are beneficial to the animal, or, in the case of domestic animals, if the breeder continues to breed for that mutation, it does change the animal very slightly. But I don't think that animals and other living things have changed that much since God created the world. I don't think horses started out as small creatures with toes and changed into the horses that we know today ( I don't even know if any evolutionists believe that theory anymore or not.), I think that they looked like horses before, and still look like horses now. There may have been mutations of color genes, and so created different colors, and maybe other very minor changes, but they are all still horses, and they have always been the same horses. That is my theory, and I do not believe that it contradicts the Bible, but I know I could be wrong. But I will always believe that the earth is young, no more than 10,000 years old, and that God created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh. I also believe that true science and the Bible do not contradict each other, in fact from studying science, I see evidence that God exists and created the world more than ever! Especially genetics. They are extremely complicated, and a lot of how they work I cannot understand. There are still things scientists do not understand about them. I do not believe that that could come about by chance, and that God created DNA like it is now in the beginning when the world was first created.
I made a promise, Mr. Frodo. A promise. "Don't you leave him Samwise Gamgee." And I don't mean to. I don't mean to. - Sam from The Fellowship of the Ring movie
I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you! - Sam from The Return of the King movie
Post Reply