Creation vs Evolution

I assume that everyone here on Memverse believes in Creation rather than Evolution, but it would be interesting to bring up some topics and discuss both sides of the issue.

For all discussions here, it is important to realize that the Bible is above science. Everyone here has probably heard how science changes. One day, scientists might believe one thing, and than they discover something else. The Bible is the TRUTH, and it never changes. Also, AiG has some great articles - http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

I almost (almost!) hope someone believes in theistic evolution or something so we can have somewhat of a debate here, rather than everyone agreeing on everything…

But hey, if no one does, having unity on a topic is great! :)

Oh, don't tell me all of you think the world is like 6,000 years old, do you? That's ludicrous! Look at all the rock layers: each layer represents millions of years of catastrophe and erosion! Look at the stars: their light takes billions of years to even reach the earth! Every time you look at a star, you're looking at what happened billions of years ago!

Clearly, God caused the Big Bang to occur, and the universe has been expanding since then. The science is settled on this! It's been proven in the laboratory over and over!

When discussing such complex topics it is best to ask the question with as much clarity as possible, defining both terms and assumptions.

The question, "Do you believe in evolution?" is really too vague to be answered. I would suggest the following framework for any discussion of evolution:

1. Do species evolve via loss of functionality?
2. Do species evolve via addition of new functionality?
3. Does a process of genetic mutation and natural selection explain species diversity?
4. Can a random process model explain the origin of life?

Most people use the word 'Evolution' to refer to a subset of the above four points.

While I doubt I'll be posting much here, I'll go through WM's statement real quick.

WM: "Oh, don't tell me all of you think the world is like 6,000 years old, do you? That's ludicrous!"

First, you poison the well. :)

WM: "Look at all the rock layers: each layer represents millions of years of catastrophe and erosion! Look at the stars: their light takes billions of years to even reach the earth! Every time you look at a star, you're looking at what happened billions of years ago!

Clearly, God caused the Big Bang to occur, and the universe has been expanding since then. The science is settled on this! It's been proven in the laboratory over and over!"

Then, you interpret the Bible by science

The two supposedly scientific claims could easily be debunked from what evolutionists want you to believe.

1) Rock layers - Flood

2) Stars - Genesis 1:3 - God said let there be light. This doesn't mean he just created the light sources, He created the light.

Just trying to stir up debate at this forum. (Does that surprise you, Mr. Hancock?)

It seems that everyone probably already agrees with the Young-Earth Creationist, Global Flood Worldview, and I just wanted to see if I could draw anyone out of their shell who may not hold to these things.

Maybe, as you did, we just need to use this forum to offer Scriptural advice and counsel on how to combat those who hold to the Day-Age or Gap or Theistic Evolution Theories?

For instance, I think it can be argued from the Genesis 1 text that God could have easily created the stars with their light already hitting the earth, or why else would He have said that they were placed where they are so that we could measure signs and seasons, days and years, etc.? It wouldn't have been possible for man to wait for the light to hit the earth at its current rate of speed; the light would've had to have been there already by the time he arrived. You'd also think that if God was able to speak matter into existence, He probably, maybe, possibly could've been able to have light travel faster than what we measure now in order for the stars to be of instant benefit for man, who was created just a couple days later.

C'mon, everyone! Give some other explanations for star light, water being placed above the firmament and below (a canopy, maybe?), or why not a local flood?

I hope that is not what you believe Mr. Wretched, but if it is there is a few problems with it. 1. If you say you believe the Bible, where in Genesis does it say, "And God said, let there be a bang."? I'm not trying to be irreverent but seriously. 2. You said that the rock layers were laid down over long periods of time. Well actually, it can be done very quickly as shown in the Mt. Saint Helen eruption where tons of sediment layers were laid down and canyons 1/40 the size of the grand canyon were carved. Also in the Bible it is shown that the earth has only been around a couple thousand years.

I wrote this before I saw your next post but think it would apply to a "Christian Evolutionist."

@WM - about the flood, a few of the many reasons that it wasn't a local flood are -

1. The Bible SAYS that it was a global flood, so if you believe the Bible, you have to believe it was global.
2. If if was local, why didn't God just tell Noah to move somewhere else instead of go to all the work of building that ark?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, so don't worry. :)

I heard someone say (who is a theistic evolutionist) that the reason God told Noah to build the ark, even though He wasn't going to flood the entire earth, was because people looked up to Noah and, if he moved, they'd all follow him, because they respected him. If he just built the ark, he'd still be there with them, but if he moved, they'd think he was serious…

They also said that, when God said He'd flood the whole earth, the "whole earth" meant the Mesopotamian Valley, because that was all that was known back then. It was the "whole earth" to the people who lived there…

It's sad how far people will stretch Scripture so they can add evolution.

Add to that:

1) The mountains were covered were covered with water. (That's kinda' hard to accomplish locally.)

2) It took nearly a year for the waters to recede! (That's some SLOW drainage if it was a local flood!)

3) Why take two of every unlcean animal and seven of every clean animal? Couldn't they've just gone to an adjacent valley and gotten some more animals to migrate over to their's after the local flood drained?

4) What's the big deal about the rainbow, too? If it was a local flood and since they're pretty common, why would God decide to bring on the rainbow over some local flood?

5) Why did it take Noah 100 years to build the ark if it was just local? He could have easily made it to another part of the earth, crawling no less, in about 50 years, give or take a decade.

Some ways to prove the flood happened:

1) - Types of rock found in one continent were found on another continent.
2) - Marine creatures found on mountain summits.
3) - 500 more at http://www.noahs-ark.tv/noahs-ark-flood-creation-stories-myths-sumerian-kings-list-sumerian-eridu-genesis-kings-list-instructions-of-shuruppak-atra-hasis-epic-of-gilgamesh-berossus.htm

I would like to hear what you guys say in response to those who believe that Creationists should be "neutral", as in, they should not attack evolutionist's positions. I personally don't believe in any such thing as being "neutral" but would like to hear your opinions on this.

Hey, if they're attacking the Bible, it's my job to stand up and defend it… by using it! The Bible is a Sword, and if anyone doubts its sharpness, we should not hesitate to prove it to them. :D

My personal opinian is that the Bible does NOT need anything or any body to prove it. But hey! It's such an interesting topic right?

This is slightly off-topic, but did you know that Darwin was actually studying for the ministry and even practiced communion on board the HMS Beagle on the way to the Galapagos? Then, when he began to doubt the Old Testament, that led to his doubting the NT. Sad, but true. And HIS doubting led to hundreds of other people's disbelief.

@Rebekah Eddy–I agree that the Bible does not need our defending, but we need to use it on those who would attack it. Nothing we could do could defend it, but we can pick it up and start swinging the Double-Edged Sword! :)

@RejoicingAlways(BethanyM)–I would go so far as to say that he has led thousands, very possibly even tens of thousands, of people away from the truth. :( If only he had had a good pastor to tell him the simple truth–that everything the Bible says is true. Very sad. :(

Darwin hasn't led anyone astray.

People already go astray on their own.

Darwin, with all of his now-defunct theories that ommitted God from the origins equation, simply provided a way for millions of individual sinful natures to have a very reasonable & justifiable excuse (at least to the foolish, unregenerate mind) to abandon, with less guilt, the God of Creation.

Our deceitful, wicked hearts are neverendingly looking for anything and anyone to give ourselves a guilt-free license to sin. This is why people hate the true gospel so much; it makes them feel guilty in the mirror of the law, and this works in direct opposition to the functions of their heart that wants to deceive its owner into believing that he/she is basically good.

As for defending the Word, while it is true that It ultimately needs no proof to establish Itself, it is also true that It is to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc. for those times when people caught in error, or when false teachers are propagating heresies, need their teachings to be pierced through with the double-edged sword of God's Holy Word, which is able to divide even between bone and marrow.

The more we know It, the better we can discern error and heresy, and preserve God's Word in truth during such onslaughts.

Prove It? No. Preserve It? Yes.

@SavedByGrace: that's true.

I don't think Christian's should be neutral (or say God used evolution) because, like the post about Darwin, how can we believe the NT if the OT isn't true? It would make me unsure of my salvation. I think we should take a stand for Creation! :)

@SparklyDeprivedTeen: I don't think there is a "neutral" in this battle.

You either take the Word at Its word, or you allow outside influences to shape how you interpret the Word.

The Bible tells me God made it all in 6 days; it also demonstrates that He could have done it in 6 seconds; and NOTHING in It describes an Almighty God who would need thousands, millions, or billions of years to create it. Final Answer: 6 literal days.

The Bible tells me the flood engulfed the entire earth; lasted about a year; and it took Noah about 100 years to build an ark to survive it with all kinds of animals. NOTHING in the text indicates that it was local. Final Answer: Global Flood for a year in an old ark with all kinds of animals.

Simple solution: Believe the Word for what It says. If It seems to disagree with Itself elsewhere, study It further to find that there's really no disagreement, just a finite creature trying to make sense of the Word from an infinite God.

There's nothing wrong with God's Word, but there's a lot wrong with us.

@Little Miss Sunshine: I agree with you!
By the way, welcome to memverse, "Little Miss Sunshine" :-)

• Rebekah Eddy

Thanks Rebekah! I'm loving Memverse! It makes memorizing fun, and gives you goals to shoot for with the levels and badges! :) Before I found out about this, I really only memorized studiously in the summer during Bible Bee season. Now I do it every day! :)

@little miss sunshine: Good for you!!!!! :)
It was the same way for me.
By the way, I've memorized my first 4 verses!!!! SCORE!!! =)

Whoa, you really had me scared for a minute there!!!

Anybody think spiral galaxies prove evolution?

Amen, Mr. Sinclair!

notices the interesting topic :P
So…why aren't y'all talking about micro-evolution as well?

@Marija That's an interesting statistical distinction. To say that simplistic lifeforms evolved into more complex lifeforms defies the natural scientific order that more ordered things degenerate into less ordered things. However, a complex lifeform can evolve into a slightly less complex lifeform, as is the case in micro-evolution.

Add to that:

1) The mountains were covered were covered with water. (That's kinda' hard to accomplish locally.)

2) It took nearly a year for the waters to recede! (That's some SLOW drainage if it was a local flood!)

3) Why take two of every unlcean animal and seven of every clean animal? Couldn't they've just gone to an adjacent valley and gotten some more animals to migrate over to their's after the local flood drained?

4) What's the big deal about the rainbow, too? If it was a local flood and since they're pretty common, why would God decide to bring on the rainbow over some local flood?

5) Why did it take Noah 100 years to build the ark if it was just local? He could have easily made it to another part of the earth, crawling no less, in about 50 years, give or take a decade.

Something else is that it wouldn't make sense for him to bring birds if it was local. But remember the story about how Noah sent a dove out of the ark that time and it came back with an olive leaf? He brought birds too.

Another thing is that every time I heard of them finding "transitional forms", they were not between anything. They were completely one thing, another thing, or a fraud.

@Marija That's an interesting statistical distinction. To say that simplistic lifeforms evolved into more complex lifeforms defies the natural scientific order that more ordered things degenerate into less ordered things. However, a complex lifeform can evolve into a slightly less complex lifeform, as is the case in micro-evolution.

Yeah, because that goes with The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Another thing is that every time I heard of them finding "transitional forms", they were not between anything. They were completely one thing, another thing, or a fraud.

One such popular series of mistakes has lead people to the "apeman" craze.

Another thing is that every time I heard of them finding "transitional forms", they were not between anything. They were completely one thing, another thing, or a fraud.

One such popular series of mistakes has lead people to the "apeman" craze.

Examples include Piltdown, Lucy, Neanderthal, Nebraska, Java, and Hiedelberg.

Another thing is that every time I heard of them finding "transitional forms", they were not between anything. They were completely one thing, another thing, or a fraud.

One such popular series of mistakes has lead people to the "apeman" craze.

Examples include Piltdown, Lucy, Neanderthal, Nebraska, Java, and Hiedelberg.

But reliable creationist sources show evidence that Piltdown and Nebraska were frauds, Hiedelberg got rejected, Lucy was an ape, and Neanderthal and Java were human.

It is in six literal days. (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31:2:3, Exodus 20:8-11) God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17)

True, true.