No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Bookends]

A no, the word Yom designates a 24 hour day and the text says there was morning and evening further indicating it was a 24 hour day.

No, a full 24 hour day is from morning to morning. The text says: 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Also the world "Yom" has 6 different literal meanings, one being a "epoch of time" and another "the working part of the day". Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon. Therefor, if we are talking about God's working day or days, I see nothing in the literal text stating that it couldn't me a long period of time in years. For we all know 1 day is like a 1000 years to God, meaning God does not experience time as we do.

So if you wish to take a hyper-literal approach, the text leaves out noon to evening, and it can't mean 24 hours. So even if you believe this phrase means a 24 hour period, you are making it an allegory.

That said, I really don't care if the earth or universe is young or old, I don't think the bible really confirms either or. But it does confirm creation, not evolution. Honest science confirms creation. All the parts, blueprints, and mechanisms of a single cell had to be there all at once in order for that cell to stay alive. I do lean more towards OEC and Dr. Hugh Ross's position and explanations because it sounds more reasonable to me, and YEC can't or haven't given a definitive or satisfactory answer why I need or should believe in 6,000 -10,000 years.

 

[Bookends]

Recently I have been doing some street work with young folks and a constant theme with them, is that they are bombarded in school, college and the media in general ( see EVERY NATURAL HISTORY PROGRAM ON THE TV) with the theory that the world evolved. This leads them then to diss any idea of a creation based history of the world and therefore a disbelief in the book of Genesis as the truth of God's word. Once you compromise on Genesis, you compromise on the basic principles of our faith....sin entering the world as a result of man's disobedience, death as a result of sin, mans separation from God and the need for salvation, Satan as a reality, marriage between a man and a women etc.
In My opinion a rejection of creation is possibly Satan's greatest achievement and one which he has successfully propagated throughout history......
Many Christians state that A belief in Creation is not something to get too "worked up about" as it is not really a "salvation matter"......I beg to differ. It is possibly the biggest stumbling block to the non christians ability to see their need for Salvation ......
evolution is Satanic in origin and must be tackled everywhere it is encountered!!

I can't honestly answer this poll. Because I don't think creation or Genesis is directly needed for salvation. The salvation of an individual is a contrite heart made ready via the Holy Spirit, which leads that individual to repentance and faith in Christ Jesus our Lord. However, in order to have repentance and faith, you need to something to repent to and have faith in, namely God. A basic knowledge of or knowing a god must exist is gained by taking in the physical world/creation (Romans 1). On the other hand, you have many people who believe in a god and creation, but not the God of the bible as it's creator. So creation isn't vital to one's repentance and faith, meaning one could have the knowledge of being a sinner and the need of needing Divine intervention without the having all the details of how God made things in the Genesis account.

Recently I've been listening to "Unshackled", a radio drama of real people's testimonies on how the came to Christ. I listened to 3 years worth of testimonies so far, and not one of them came to faith via Genesis 1. The fall of man may be used to demonstrate our need for a savior, but the 6 days of creation? not so much. (BTW, I would recommend "Unshackled" to anyone, what a faith builder!! Hearing the life stories of how God works with circumstances, Godly people and His Word to bring one to salvation. This program can embolden you and teach you how to become a better witness for Christ).

In conclusion, I can't say Creation/Genesis is vital to one's salvation, but it can and does play a part. For one must realize there is a God, if they realize that then IMO they must have hunch on how we all got here. So this is why I can't honestly answer the poll.

God Bless

 

[JackH]

There's literally zero evidence of a global flood. In fact, it has been proven that there was never a global flood since a global flood would have left clear signs consistent over the globe.

But wouldn't that make the Young Earth Creationists' claim that all of the earth's geological formations were caused by Noah's flood somewhat suspect?

 

[JackH]

YEC can't or haven't given a definitive or satisfactory answer why I need or should believe in 6,000 -10,000 years.

I haven't heard one either.

A Young Earth Creationist says that dinosaurs were created one day (24-hour period) before man.

Among other questions I have about that pertains to dinosaurs on the ark. Particularly Tyrannosaurus Rex. That dude could eat 500 pounds of meat in one bite. I'm wondering who or what on the ark he ate.

 

[RedTent]

I haven't heard one either.

A Young Earth Creationist says that dinosaurs were created one day (24-hour period) before man.

Among other questions I have about that pertains to dinosaurs on the ark. Particularly Tyrannosaurus Rex. That dude could eat 500 pounds of meat in one bite. I'm wondering who or what on the ark he ate.

What about understanding that if God didn't tell us directly, like God told us the ten commandments, God didn't think it was important that we have that information? Lots of questions Christian fuss about and try to know are questions that God just hasn't supplied the answers to.

 

[Bowman]

Nor does Scripture say "Do not abort unborn children," or "God is sovereign" or "God is triune."

Are those also human ideas?

Actually, scripture does state those things.

Study.

Up.

 

[breno785au]

I haven't heard one either.

A Young Earth Creationist says that dinosaurs were created one day (24-hour period) before man.

Among other questions I have about that pertains to dinosaurs on the ark. Particularly Tyrannosaurus Rex. That dude could eat 500 pounds of meat in one bite. I'm wondering who or what on the ark he ate.

If I were to take animals on an ark, i'd take them when they are small, less food, less space, less waste and a longer life span when the ordeal is over so it can procreate more.

 

[Tintin]

I haven't heard one either.

A Young Earth Creationist says that dinosaurs were created one day (24-hour period) before man.

Among other questions I have about that pertains to dinosaurs on the ark. Particularly Tyrannosaurus Rex. That dude could eat 500 pounds of meat in one bite. I'm wondering who or what on the ark he ate.

I don't believe for one minute that you're 97. What a joke!

Sorry, I should've said dinosaurs were made before mankind but one the same day - the sixth day of creation. But sure, continue to compromise God's Word. I see it worked well for others. Not.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

As for evidence of the Flood, the evidence is overwhelming.

Consider the fact there are marine fossils and shells on every continent even as high as Mount Everest. Consider the fact of the layering itself which needs a lot of water and a period of cataclysmic mixing to then let it settle into such layers. People always stereotype the Flood like just a lot of rain, but it is also written water came up as well, and underground water networks are well known and documented (in fact much of humanity's potable water source comes from them). Consider how the dinosaurs and other large life forms are found severely messed up and bear signs of being cataclysmically destroyed in a violently short space of time. Look how many fossils including most complete T-REX fossil Sue the T-Rex shows signs of disease and poor health prior to death thus collaborating evidence the age immediately prior to the cataclysm was one of near unfathomable hardship. Also notice this, many of the animals in the fossil record we find still existing today, or at least in the recent past, especially among thesimpler creatures like insects and common sealife. Heh the sea life itself as be the least likely to be totally destroyed is interesting too as in modern times exciting re-discoveries of sea-creatures long thought to be extinct prove that whatever wiped the world out long ago had to have been a lot of water. Plus what is a fossil? It's when sediment forms around bone which needs a good degree of water to allow the mineral to take over the bone leaving a cast, thus it is without a worldwide Flood you could not even have fossils on every single continent to begin with.


I see how people doubt the Flood, I did once too, but when you investigate it there's actually more proof for that than any other historical event from a non-biased perspective of really any religions, rational ideology, or strict scrutiny. Opponents of the Bible who just can't accept it don't realize that just because it true the Flood happened, that still raises other questions; like what about the Age before the Flood? What were the mechanics so to speak of the Flood? What animals existed before the Flood, survived the Flood, and have perished in the long and brutal post-Flood Age? How long did the pre-Flood Age last? Why the Flood happen? And so forth, which instead of being shunned I think should be looked at differently, because even though many people since the 1800s AD have tried to spin it elsewise, the evidence suggests against them. Really though don't hate on even the secular scientists, look at it this way, There are many Flood Theories. Though the atheist don't know it they have actually uncovered a lot of supprting evidence that supports the Bible version of the many Flood and pre-Flood stories/theories is in fact the most scientifically accurate.

 

[Esanta]

There was no correspondence in their grammatical construction.
The second clause of your statement did not have an object, or conclusion.
In your sense of it, my statement could not be analogous to yours.



"Significant changes" do not a different species make.

Your statement made no conclusion regarding evolution.


And you missed my analogy.


And that is the analogy. . .sorry you missed it.

Adaptations within the species are in no way comparable to evolution into a new species.


Like I had to explain to you why mine was an analogy. . .of a conclusion unrelated to the premise.

In addition, your statement presented no conclusion related to the premise.
So my statement with its conclusion could not be analogous to your statement without one.
Rather, mine was analogous to an assumed conclusion which did not follow from the premise.


And so we're back to the God-man and Scripture:

"Physician, heal thyself."

Please don't procreate.

 

[Percepi]

If God has revealed to you that Jesus is the Christ and He died, rose again and ascended into heaven then what's the issue with believing Genesis? To me it comes hand in hand.

The issue stems from how Genesis completely contradicts reality. It would be as if the Bible stated there would never be machines that would allow mankind to fly through the sky, then arguing with people who say airplanes are a conspiracy and don't exist.

It's like we're on the Titanic as it's sinking and you're telling me, "The Titanic isn't sinking. It's unsinkable. That's what the pamphlet says!"

I am not in the business of accommodating Scripture to science.
I am in the business of accommodating science to Scripture.

Accommodate scripture to science: Observe reality and apply what has been observed to scripture.
Accommodate science to scripture: Observe reality and reject all observations that contradict scripture.

"Science adjusts it's beliefs on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin, Storm

 

[Tintin]

Please don't procreate.

Hmm... you're a lovely person. You know that?

 

[Percepi]

Consider the fact there are marine fossils and shells on every continent even as high as Mount Everest.

That's because the mountains were once a part of the sea floor. As two plates collide, the seafloor is pushed upward. This creates mountains. This is very basic geology!

Consider the fact of the layering itself which needs a lot of water and a period of cataclysmic mixing to then let it settle into such layers.

Geological layers don't settle neatly in different rock layers after being mixed with water. Ray Comfort argued this, and he even said you can put a bunch of different types of dirt in a tub, mix it with water, and view the different layers. This is actually a pretty good experiment. The problem is, this experiment DISPROVES his claim (and yours). The different typed of dirt do not settle in nice layers.

People always stereotype the Flood like just a lot of rain, but it is also written water came up as well, and underground water networks are well known and documented (in fact much of humanity's potable water source comes from them).

Yes, much of our water exists within the earth. But not nearly enough to flood the entire planet.

Consider how the dinosaurs and other large life forms are found severely messed up and bear signs of being cataclysmically destroyed in a violently short space of time. Look how many fossils including most complete T-REX fossil Sue the T-Rex shows signs of disease and poor health prior to death thus collaborating evidence the age immediately prior to the cataclysm was one of near unfathomable hardship.

Considering the layout of dinosaur fossils, it's clear they died during different periods. It's why we don't see all types of fossils in all types of layers. Furthermore, finding a dinosaur fossil that points towards said dinosaur having poor health isn't evidence all dinosaurs suffered poor health. It's like traveling into a new village where you meet one person who has a cold, then assuming everyone in the village has a cold.

Also notice this, many of the animals in the fossil record we find still existing today, or at least in the recent past, especially among thesimpler creatures like insects and common sealife.

Actually, we don't. We find animals similar to some found today, but we have determined important differences between the two.

Plus what is a fossil? It's when sediment forms around bone which needs a good degree of water to allow the mineral to take over the bone leaving a cast, thus it is without a worldwide Flood you could not even have fossils on every single continent to begin with.

Actually, there are numerous ways in which fossils can be formed. They don't have to form under water. Fossil formation is actually quite rare. But, we have such a large number of fossils due to the vast amounts of life that has existed on our planet. Still, most life isn't preserved - not even in the ocean.

I see how people doubt the Flood, I did once too, but when you investigate it there's actually more proof for that than any other historical event from a non-biased perspective of really any religions, rational ideology, or strict scrutiny.

If you sincerely looked into this issue without bias, you did quite a horrendous job. You fail to understand even the most fundamental scientific studies. It sounds like it's the Bible that caused you to reject evolution. The idea that scripture MUST be right is not an "unbiased" take on evolution.

 

[crossnote]

"Science adjusts it's beliefs on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin, Storm

Therefore evolution is not science.

What is it called when eyewitness testimonies are denied by 'so called science'?...State propaganda.

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (1Co 15:5-8)

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
(Mar 16:14)


And what is it called when 300 prophecies written at least 400 years before are fulfilled in regard to one individual and are denied for various unproven reasons?...'closed ear unbelief'!

 

[Percepi]

Therefore evolution is not science.

Evolution is the result of observation. Not the denial of it as you claim.

What is it called when eyewitness testimonies are denied by 'so called science'?...State propaganda.

Science has never relied on eyewitness testimonies. In fact, science exists because eye witness testimonies are unreliable to establishing well substantiated truth.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Science operates on induction (e.g. inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances). The inductive method entails searching out things in the material universe and drawing conclusions about those things based on observation. When we witness something via observation we are eyewitnesses to it and can be called to testify about it later.

Though the reliability of eyewitness testimony is a subject under study in forensic psychology, it's ignorant to state that "eye witness testimonies are unreliable to establishing well substantiated truth." Some are and some are not and this can be ascertained. Quantifiable factors can be employed to help determine the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony toward qualifying the truth.

Some modern historical scholars have called Luke a "historian of the first rate." While eyewitness testimony isn't as reliable as DNA testing, for example, it is not conjectural or circumstantial. It is first-hand evidence (e.g. the evidence that results from seeing an event or being part of an event). As truth is found in correspondence what historians, scientists, lawyers, etc... do with eyewitness testimony is look to collaboration for confirmation or falsifiability.

Evolution is the result of observation. Not the denial of it as you claim. Science has never relied on eyewitness testimonies. In fact, science exists because eye witness testimonies are unreliable to establishing well substantiated truth.

 

[Tintin]

Evolution is the result of observation. Not the denial of it as you claim.



Science has never relied on eyewitness testimonies. In fact, science exists because eye witness testimonies are unreliable to establishing well substantiated truth.

Bulldust. Come on! Be honest with yourself. My biblical creation beliefs and your evolutionary beliefs shape the way we look at the same physical and observable evidence.

 

[Percepi]

Science operates on induction (e.g. inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances). The inductive method entails searching out things in the material universe and drawing conclusions about those things based on observation. When we witness something via observation we are eyewitnesses to it and can be called to testify about it later.

I could witness the flight of a bird. I could then deduce that the bird is flying because aliens in outer space are zapping them with a ray gun that only effects winged creatures. By your definition, this is science.

Science isn't about drawing conclusions. It's about how you draw those conclusions. This is where your understanding of science completely falls on its face.

Though the reliability of eyewitness testimony is a subject under study in forensic psychology, it's ignorant to state that "eye witness testimonies are unreliable to establishing well substantiated truth." Some are and some are not and this can be ascertained. Quantifiable factors can be employed to help determine the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony toward qualifying the truth.

Eye witness testimony can be verified through science, but it is not scientific in itself. Again, to suggest eye witness testimony is reliable science completely destroys what science is. I can claim that I've witnessed a unicorn flying through the sky before it exploded. This isn't science. But you definition makes it out to be so.

Some modern historical scholars have called Luke a "historian of the first rate."

This made me laugh. These historical scholars are ignorant of what science is and deserve to be ridiculed.

Bulldust. Come on! Be honest with yourself. My biblical creation beliefs and your evolutionary beliefs shape the way we look at the same physical and observable evidence.

We can both witness the eruption of a volcano. One of us could explain that the volcano erupted due to pressure built up beneath the volcano. The other one of us could claim that the volcano erupted due to a volcano demon sucking the magma into the sky and blanketing the lava all over the surroundings. Sure, it can be argued that we were both looking at the same physical and observable evidence, but the understanding of that evidence differs greatly. The claim that pressure built up beneath the volcano is supported by science through well established study that isn't so simple as pondering what might be the answer and claiming it's the truth. That is, however, precisely how creationism works.

 

[Hashe]

Why was the earth created in six days in Genesis 1 and only 1 in Genesis 2?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I could punch you in the face and you could deduce whatever you wanted. The fact would remain that I would have punched you in the face. Truth is found in correspondence. I punched you in the face, therefore you were punched in the face. See how this works?

Yes I made a general statement about science. I said, "Science operates on induction (e.g. inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances). The inductive method entails searching out things in the material universe and drawing conclusions about those things based on observation." My statement is true. Of course, hypothesis have to be qualified (e.g. testing, etc..) to see what correspondence they have to the truth. I never said they didn't. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

It would be faulty for someone to witness the flight of a bird and assert that it must therefore be "flying because aliens in outer space is zapping them with a ray gun that only effects winged creatures." It would be as faulty as observing the enormous amount of evidence for transcendence and asserting that transcendence must therefore be non-existent. Since the how of the flight of a bird corresponds to the physical and natural world; it lends itself to experimentation. If the flight of a bird corresponded to reality transcendent to the physical and natural world, it might not, as can be the case with transcendent realities.

Eyewitness testimony is first-hand observation. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. So observation (including first-hand observation) is relevant to science.

More disturbing; however, is the infantile ad hominem you direct at historical scholars for your comments reveal a colossal ignorance on your part with respect to the science they use in their profession. Antiquarianism incorporates a wide spectrum of auxiliary sciences. Here are some of the more well known ones:

• Archeology, the study of ancient and historic sites and artifacts
• Chronology, the study of the sequence of past events
• Cliometrics, the systematic application of economic theory, econometric techniques, and other formal or mathematical methods to the study of history
• Codicology, the study of books as physical objects
• Diplomatics, the study and textual analysis of historical documents
• Epigraphy, the study of ancient inscriptions
• Faleristics, the study of military orders, decorations and medals
• Genealogy, the study of family relationships
• Heraldry, the study of armorial devices
• Numismatics, the study of coins
• Onomastics, the study of proper names
• Paleography, the study of old handwriting
• Philately, the study of postage stamps
• Philology, the study of the language of historical sources
• Prosopography, the investigation of a historical group of individuals through a collective study of their lives
• Sigillography, the study of seals
• Statistics, the study of the collection, organization, and interpretation of (historical) data
• Toponymy, the study of place-names

Etc...

Read an 'Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science' for more information.

Now since you are connecting all of this to creationism, as per the topic, then you should probably begin to educate yourself about that topic as well. Firstly, just as there are various hypothesis amongst scientists for an observation there also are various hypothesis exist amongst creationists for what we observe. Secondly, since the how actually is transcendent to the what with respect to the universe, your definition falters. Consider this example: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off: Fazale Rana, Hugh Ross: 9781576833445: Amazon.com: Books which is the book that resulted in the conversion of ex-atheist Nobel Prize winner in chemistry Richard E. Smalley (the Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University, in Houston, Texas) to Christianity.

I could witness the flight of a bird. I could then deduce that the bird is flying because aliens in outer space are zapping them with a ray gun that only effects winged creatures. By your definition, this is science. Science isn't about drawing conclusions. It's about how you draw those conclusions. This is where your understanding of science completely falls on its face. Eye witness testimony can be verified through science, but it is not scientific in itself. Again, to suggest eye witness testimony is reliable science completely destroys what science is. I can claim that I've witnessed a unicorn flying through the sky before it exploded. This isn't science. But you definition makes it out to be so. This made me laugh. These historical scholars are ignorant of what science is and deserve to be ridiculed. We can both witness the eruption of a volcano. One of us could explain that the volcano erupted due to pressure built up beneath the volcano. The other one of us could claim that the volcano erupted due to a volcano demon sucking the magma into the sky and blanketing the lava all over the surroundings. Sure, it can be argued that we were both looking at the same physical and observable evidence, but the understanding of that evidence differs greatly. The claim that pressure built up beneath the volcano is supported by science through well established study that isn't so simple as pondering what might be the answer and claiming it's the truth. That is, however, precisely how creationism works.