Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by houston

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I never noticed (until now) that every day of creation is followed with "And the evening and the morning were the [insert numerical value] day. "
So, even though "day" can mean an unspecified amount of time, the text (in English) does not allow us to make that conclusion.

I think the more we look at Genesis there is no other good hermeneutic alternative except that the days are literal "24 hour" days, for precisely the same reasons you list.
1)Day is defined in Genesis 1 as consisting of light and darkness (evening and morning)
2)The days in Genesis are given a numerical value, further strengthening the argument for literal days
in addition to this
3)Every time the creation account is referred to in scripture, it is referred to as a literal historical event. Granted there are times in which spiritual lessons are taught from Genesis 1 (such as 2 Corinthians 4:6).
4)Jesus himself referred to the creation account as literal, as did all NT writers, and traced the "beginning" back to the creation week, in particular day 6 (Mark 10:6). This should have some serious weight if Jesus is who we believe Him to be, he certainly could have clarified the issue:

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

5)IF God is indeed infinite in power and wisdom, is eternal, and time itself is simply a creation of His, why do we think 6 days is too brief a time period for Him to create the universe? Especially if His Word alone is powerful enough to speak things into existence (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6)? He didn't need 6 days, he didn't even need 1 hour. He is mighty and able to do anything He wants as He wants. And will do so again in when he creates all things anew, which is an instantaneous act, not an act which takes hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. Beyond all of this, the only scripture that we have, which is said to come directly from the hand of God, the scripture engraved on the tablets given to Moses, contains an first hand account of creation given by God himself:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and ALL that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I think there are a lot of good reasons to affirm the literal account of Genesis, especially if someone affirms the inspiration and authority of the scriptures (and ESPECIALLY so if they affirm the inerrancy of the scriptures). IF you notice the large majority of arguments made by theistic evolutionists/progressive creationists ALWAYS center around and are based on scientific theories, such as red shift, c-14 dating, the geological column, etc. They do not make their case from the scripture, they spend their whole time trying to explain away scriptures which plainly refute their conclusions in much the same way the universalist will attempt to explain away/redefine scriptures such as Matthew 25:41. Its the same tactic, just another subject. The whole argument always comes back to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Word of God. And as always, the Word of God is assailed generation by generation, and continually emerges triumphant. If evolution was true, the Scopes monkey trial of the 1920's would have been the final nail in the coffin. Instead, the more technologically advanced we become, and the things that can be tested by true science (such as DNA) continually point toward an all wise designer.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Good site to explore is here:

http://www.reasons.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM

[Jason B]

I wasn't particularly impressed with Hugh Ross in either of these debates. If the Young Earth Creationists are as wacko as they are put off to be, Ross should be "mopping" the floor with them. His problem is he is trying to hold to the middle ground, and so anyone who believes in the literal account of the scripture destroys Ross' arguments with the scripture, even if they cannot match his "science".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNV6XYpX_XQ

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So if you adopt any literal reading Genesis 1 you do so at the cost of making it possible for day and night to occur without the sun... and that's just absurd.

I can't think of anything more absurd than Richard Dawkins expressing his belief that aliens could be the source of life on earth. Okay...so reject the God of the Bible, and credit all the work of His hands to aliens. Sounds like real science to me.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I can't think of anything more absurd than Richard Dawkins expressing his belief that aliens could be the source of life on earth. Okay...so reject the God of the Bible, and credit all the work of His hands to aliens. Sounds like real science to me.

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories. The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

Well, light being created before a sun is not an issue to me, but this is. This seems to say that the 24 hour day was before the creation of the sun.

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I never noticed (until now) that every day of creation is followed with "And the evening and the morning were the [insert numerical value] day. "
So, even though "day" can mean an unspecified amount of time, the text (in English) does not allow us to make that conclusion.

Hmm...

The "evening and morning" were markers of a 24 hour period. We only need a sun and moon to notice this 24 hour period visually. However if we were on the Star Trek Enterprise, we'd still count off hours without a sun and moon. We might even still count off the Evening shift or morning shift and even wakeup and have a morning coffee.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So if you adopt any literal reading Genesis 1 you do so at the cost of making it possible for day and night to occur without the sun... and that's just absurd.

All that is needed is light and the absence of light. Someone can create a huge DOME like in Logan's Run and people can live in it without even seeing the Sun yet still have an artificial light source that grows dim at the same time every day until it's Dark.

So God created the idea of a day and night cycle before Creating A Sun and Moon to do this for us naturally.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aliens is quite an odd word when it comes to science. Simple single cell organisms from outerspace might very well explain life on earth better than most other life from nothing theories. The usefulness of such a theory is that the conditions in outerspace are numerious and often very different than the conditions that were present on earth so it gives more possibilites for how life could have arose from nonlife.

So are Allens

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Its strange that those who reject a literal interpretation of Genesis in favor of various evolutionary theories (whether secular or "theistic") fail to notice the glaring inconsistencies such as the fact that it is impossible for life to come from non living matter, for any creature to "evolve" into a different "kind" of creature, that all mutations are due to the loss of information, and not beneficial. To say nothing of the glaring inconsistencies of theistic evolutionists who affirm that the Bible is the Word of God with one side of their mouth, while discrediting it with the other. And all of this with ZERO hard demonstrable scientific evidence, just a bunch of speculative theories. There is more evidence for global warming than there is for macro-evolution. There is an equal amount of evidence that Elvis is still alive and that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is plausible that there could be day and night without the sun. Since God spoke light into existence without the sun, and since there will be light in the millennium without the sun, and since the Bible declares that there will be no sun because the Lamb will be the light in the new Jerusalem (and presumably the new creation) then it is possible for there to be day (and night, defined by the absence of light) without the sun. Furthermore, it is possible because God said that's what happened, and He was "there" so to speak.


Which is even more of a reason to believe in a literal creation week, rather than the day-age theory (or any spin off) which makes the "days" equal to a thousand, thousands, or millions of YEARS each. If Genesis 1 gives us an order of creation (as the reading suggests) then it would be very problematic to have plant life on day 3 and a sun on day 4, if there were actually thousands or millions of years in between. It would be particularly difficult for plant life to thrive in the absence of animal/insect life, which doesn't come until day 6. If these were periods of thousands or even millions of years there are real problems. If they are days, not so much.



If this is possible then your discrepancy evaporates:
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

The only discrepancy is between rejecting the testimony of scripture for the testimony of men (many of which with a vested interest that evolution be "true")..



More absurd than postulating that life came from non living matter?

Not that I believe in it, but in the day-age reading of genesis 1 isn't there still a God that could have miraculously sustained all plant life without there being a sun... its kinda funny you attack that theory as being impossible when God can do anything...

But either way, life on earth most certainly arose from nonlife (its not impossible, thats simply what happened). Whether you explain that by saying God did it or whether you search and are eventually able to find a way for it to have happened naturally it still means that life arose from nonlife. Science is about explaining the world naturally and as such scientists ought to keep searching for a natural explanation for how life arose from nonlife. Maybe they will find one maybe they will not but science wouldn't progress if it didn't try to find natural explanations.

Getting off the topic of abiogenisis and moving on to evolution, pelthais has shown many times on this board that macro evolution has much more evidence than the evolution deniers can possibly imagine. The science truly is on the side of evolution but that's something you don't want to hear.

Moving on to what is really important to you, the scriptures. So while you can say that in heaven there is no need for a sun thats fine. Obviously there was a need for the sun on earth or God wouldn't have created it and the bible even tells us what the sun was for in Genesis 1:

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.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

To summarize God made the sun and moon to give light upon the earth. So what was the light and darkness and the evening and the morning and even the day spoken of in Genesis 1:2-5 ?

As far as the verse in revelation you quoted:
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

That verse presupposes that the sun and moon were to provide light on earth which is exactly what genesis 1 tells us.

So getting back to the topic, what is the light that god created in genesis 1 actually supposed to be. Prehaps its actually a statement about the existence of light. God created light and day and night but did not yet provide the earth with that light till the 4th day when he created the sun. If this is the case my argument using the creation of day and night before the creation of the sun isn't a good argument.

By the way why is evolution the hot topic issue when other popular scientific theories more directly conflict genesis 1. For example, astronomy supposes that the sun came into existence before the earth while genesis supposes that the earth was created before the sun. Why don't literal 6 day creationists lash out against astronomers for going against the bible just like they do for evolutionists?

[houston]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So you don't have a problem with there being evenings and mornings without the sun?

No. God separated light from darkness. No sun needed.

Though an earth without form and void. That sounds evolutionary.