Creationism or Evolutionism.

[TigerShadow]

The whole point of this debate is that Eleventh does believe in Genesis; he just doesn't believe that it should be interpreted entirely literally the way you do, and you feel the need to dispute his interpretation. It's worth noting that a day to God is not necessarily like a day to us; He did not necessarily create the universe in seven literal days.

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

I'm not going to get involved in this debate since I don't feel I know enough on the scientific side of things. I can safely say that, for now, I agree with Eleventh Doctor (though I can also safely say that I agree with Eleventh Doctor on every post he's ever made) and Wodfamchocsod seems to be putting words in his mouth and misinterpreting nearly everything he says. Not trying to start a fight, and no offense to WFCS, but those are just my observations.

[Metal15]

I did some digging on this issue, and so here's my opinion on this topic.


Mark 10:6 says, "But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’"

^That insinuates to me that God made them, at the beginning of creation, 'male and female', and not over the course of millions of years like evolution suggests.

And John 5:45-47 says, "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

^Jesus sounds like he's pretty into you listening to what Moses said, and that it's true.

And Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

^Moses seems clear that it was a literal 7 days, the basis of our 7 day week which includes 6 days of work and one day of rest.


So for me I'm a 7-day creation kinda guy. Make of the above what you will, that's my take on it.

[Eleventh Doctor]

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

So do the moon and stars literally rule the night?

I agree we are made in God's image, I'm just asking what it means to you. Does it mean we look like God or what?

I don't take most books entirely literally, most books use both figurative and literal language.

I think fossils point to both.

As Tigershadow says I do believe Genesis, just not your interpretation. I think your view is legitimate, I just don't agree with it.

@Metal You make some good points but you also bring up a point about the literal vs figurative nature of Genesis. The verse Mark is quoting is Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." In this part of Genesis God creates an ambiguous number of nameless male and female humans at the same time. But then in Genesis 2 God creates Adam specifically first and the Eve later. So if we read Genesis completely literally then God created people twice and in different ways.

You make a great point with the John verses. But the Bible also says a thousand years are like a day to the Lord. Do we accept that as literal?

[Wodfamchocsod]

@Metal15: you're absolutely right.
@11th Doc: yes, the moon and stars literally rule the night. Like Metal15 said, in exodus 20 it clearly states that it is literal.
So...what do you think about Adam and Eve? The part in the Bible (the first couple chapters in fact) about Gods creation? If you don't take it literally then what is Genesis to you? Not part of the Bible or something?
How do fossils point to both? I agree that they point to the flood. But an old earth? How?
The Bible states a day is LIKE a thousand years, and a thousand years one day.
And, even if one day =1,000 years (I believe in a literal 7 day creation) then it is still a very young earth.
Another thing: evolution, as you're talking about, requires death. Billions of years of it. In Romans it states the wages of sin is death. Why would God create life out of death?

[Eleventh Doctor]

The moon and stars do not literally rule the night. You do not know what that word means, please define literal for me.

I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve existed.

Genesis is part of the Bible but it is poetry, its figurative and symbolic nature doesn't make it any less inspired or part of the Bible. Unless you think the Psalms shouldn't be in the Bible?

Fossils are old, carbon dating has shown some things to be millions if not trillions of years old. How is that possible?

[Wodfamchocsod]

The moon and stars do not literally rule the night. You do not know what that word means, please define literal for me.

I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve existed.

Genesis is part of the Bible but it is poetry, its figurative and symbolic nature doesn't make it any less inspired or part of the Bible. Unless you think the Psalms shouldn't be in the Bible?

Fossils are old, carbon dating has shown some things to be millions if not trillions of years old. How is that possible?

Yes, the moon and stars literally do. Read Genesis 1:16.
If Adam and Eve existed, are you just going to take out the part about God creating them?
Umm..no Psalms is totally in the Bible. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16. Your thoughts?
I believe carbon dating supports a young earth, actually. All radiometric and carbon dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth.
You haven't answered my question about evolution creating life out of death.

[Eleventh Doctor]

You need to give me a definition of literally, all of our debates hing on you actually understanding what that word means and right now I don't think you do. I will answer your other questions when you define the word literally.

[Wodfamchocsod]

You need to give me a definition of literally, all of our debates hing on you actually understanding what that word means and right now I don't think you do. I will answer your other questions when you define the word literally.

in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
Ok. Now go on.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Okay so please explain to me how the stars and moon literally rule the night sky.

Which account of God creating them?

Are the Psalms literal? I think all of those things are true about Scripture.

When have carbon dating results been censored? And where are the studies that support the young earth theory?

Evolution doesn't create life out of death, it weeds out undesirable traits through death.

[Wodfamchocsod]

Okay so please explain to me how the stars and moon literally rule the night sky.

Which account of God creating them?

Are the Psalms literal? I think all of those things are true about Scripture.

When have carbon dating results been censored? And where are the studies that support the young earth theory?

Evolution doesn't create life out of death, it weeds out undesirable traits through death.

In the Bible (which is true, exact as it says in 2 Timothy as I stated) it says the stars and moon are present by giving the night sky light.
Umm...the account in the Bible.
Yes, the Bible is literal and true and exact. Same with the psalms.
Ok...in light of the carbon dating look at this website and tell me what you think. Just type answers in Genesis and why carbon dating proves a young earth. Very simple.
Same thing. And, tell me, I'm curious, in Romans it says the wages of sin is death. Evolution requires billions of years of death, and you know it. That's sin. Why would God choose to create the world out of death? Especially when the account of Creation is in His word, the VERY FIRST CHAPTER OF IT??

[TigerShadow]

Re: Answers in Genesis, many people distrust that website's interpretations of Scripture, usually on the grounds of faulty science, so I wouldn't recommend it to people who are already argumentative as to what it says.

Meanwhile, I'm genuinely curious, Eleventh—how do you fit the evolutionary cycle of death by natural selection into creationist theory?

[Wodfamchocsod]

Re: Answers in Genesis, many people distrust that website's interpretations of Scripture, usually on the grounds of faulty science, so I wouldn't recommend it to people who are already argumentative as to what it says.

Meanwhile, I'm genuinely curious, Eleventh—how do you fit the evolutionary cycle of death by natural selection into creationist theory?

They aren't just a website, though. They have magazines and colleges. (And they prove good points).
But, yes, 11th? How?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Being present is not ruling the night sky. It is a figure of speech, i.e. not literal.

Which account? There are two.

I still think you don't know what literal means. In Psalms 23 David writes "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death" Do you think David was really walking through a valley called the shadow of death when he wrote this?

I am familiar with Answers In Genesis, they provide no sources to cast doubt on the science of carbon dating. They point out and scientist who do carbon dating agree, that there is a margin of error on the dates but even if we take the widest margin of error that still puts the age of the earth at over a million years. They don't have evidence to back up their claims, if you want me to take a look at a specific article please link it here.

I think God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing, I think that is what Genesis tells us for sure. As for a literal six day creations, not so clear. But do you think God created every animal exactly as they are today? I think TigerShadow that God created the universe and the earth but I don't think it was exactly what the world looks like today, things are different, animals are different, humans have adapted and evolved to fit new situations. That does not conflict with God creating everything out of nothing.

[Wodfamchocsod]

Being present is not ruling the night sky. It is a figure of speech, i.e. not literal.

Which account? There are two.

I still think you don't know what literal means. In Psalms 23 David writes "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death" Do you think David was really walking through a valley called the shadow of death when he wrote this?

I am familiar with Answers In Genesis, they provide no sources to cast doubt on the science of carbon dating. They point out and scientist who do carbon dating agree, that there is a margin of error on the dates but even if we take the widest margin of error that still puts the age of the earth at over a million years. They don't have evidence to back up their claims, if you want me to take a look at a specific article please link it here.

I think God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing, I think that is what Genesis tells us for sure. As for a literal six day creations, not so clear. But do you think God created every animal exactly as they are today? I think TigerShadow that God created the universe and the earth but I don't think it's exactly what the world looks like today, things are different, animals are different, humans have adapted and evolved to fit new situations. That does not conflict with God creating everything out of nothing.

When God says to rule he night sky, He means it (now there are different translations.)
I am talking about how God created man, breathed into His nostrils and he was alive. Here is nothing about evolution there.
David was providing an example, my dear friend.
Thank you for your insight into Answers in Genesis. I'll remember.
So...you believe in evolution and that God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing? What? Sorry, I'm a bit confused.
I do believe that the animals don't look exactly as they did. They didn't evolve into others animals; they just have different features through natural selection.

[Eleventh Doctor]

No, ruling the night sky is a figure of speech. The stars and moon are objects they cannot rule anything. They do not make rules about the night or command the night what to do. It is a figure of speech.

But which time? Genesis has two creation accounts.

An example which is not literal, which is figurative and symbolic.

Natural selection = evolution

[Wodfamchocsod]

No, ruling the night sky is a figure of speech. The stars and moon are objects they cannot rule anything. They do not make rules about the night or command the night what to do. It is a figure of speech.

But which time? Genesis has two creation accounts.

An example which is not literal, which is figurative and symbolic.

Natural selection = evolution

When God said they'd rule the night, they were put there for a purpose and that's all there is to it. Yeah...obviously they don't make commands.
I'm taking about Genesis 2 when God created man. Now back to the question. Are you just going to take out the part about God creating them?
An example which proves a literal point.
No, it selects certain traits to be passed on through the same species. In the Bible in Genesis, everything produces after it's own kind. God said it was very good.
You haven't answered how evolution and the death in it fit into your view.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Saying they rule the night is a figurative way of saying they were put there for a purpose. When figurative language is used it means the passage is not literal. When I say the Bible is not literal all I mean is that there are passages that use figurative or symbolic language.

No, I'm not. I'm going to say it is using figurative and symbolic language though.

True but that does not make the passage literal, it is still using figurative language and is thus not literal.

They produce generally within their own type but species can be a broad category. Look at the works of Carl Linnaeus, a Christian biologist who created the modern classifications of species and who grouped apes and humans together in the same species.

As I said, evolution uses death to weed out non desirable traits.

[Wodfamchocsod]

Saying they rule the night is a figurative way of saying they were put there for a purpose. When figurative language is used it means the passage is not literal. When I say the Bible is not literal all I mean is that there are passages that use figurative or symbolic language.

No, I'm not. I'm going to say it is using figurative and symbolic language though.

True but that does not make the passage literal, it is still using figurative language and is thus not literal.

They produce generally within their own type but species can be a broad category. Look at the works of Carl Linnaeus, a Christian biologist who created the modern classifications of species and who grouped apes and humans together in the same species.

As I said, evolution uses death to weed out non desirable traits.

Ok?? Why were we arguing about this?
So...you think the Bible isn't literal when it says God created Adam and Eve? Ok, that a bit out there. Read the end of Revelation...it says if anyone tries to add or take away any part of the Bible, there will be consequences. Creation in the Bible perfectly explains why we got here, and I don't know why you think you need another explanation.
Yes it makes it literal because of 2 Timothy 3:16.
I mean dogs produce dogs and not cats.
I think it's rather insulting when people tell me I came from an ape.
You're not answering my question. And tiger shadows. How do you bring the evolution cycle of death into your creationist theory?

[Eleventh Doctor]

We're still arguing the meanings of literal, figurative, and symbolic because you still don't understand their meaning. We can believe the Bible in it's entirety without taking every word literally. I am not taking away or adding to any part of the Bible. I am interpreting it in a way that disagrees with you. Figurative and symbolic passages can still be inspired by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. I mean look at the parables Christ told during His earthly ministry, were those literal stories?

Take it up with Carl Linnaeus.

I do think I have answered your question.