EMW

If we can't comprehend the amount of time it takes to do something, then there's no point in someone telling us about the measurement.

So you're saying that the reason god said that it took him 7 days as opposed to billions is because the people couldnt comprehend billions?? So he lied to them because he didnt make his people smart enough? Why, then, did he give us the knowledge to see a star hundreds of millions of lightyears away and conclude that the universe was at least that old when we havnt been around that long?? What makes modern man more capable of comprehending time than back then?

Because we learned and figured all of that out for ourselves. Why should God spoon feed us everything? Rather, we should grow in intelligence over time, and by learning and using science we can figure things out. There's no personal benefit to know everything without working for it. It's like using cheat codes on video games - you can win easily and quickly, but you loose the satisfaction of putting effort into completing your tasks.

Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

alright, I'll let you have the last word

Now back to the Creationism vs Evolution debate.

What do you think should be taught in schools??

In my opinion, there should be a separation between church and state. Public schools do, and should, have the right to teach evolution. Private religious schools have the ability to teach both.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:In my opinion, there should be a separation between church and state. Public schools do, and should, have the right to teach evolution. Private religious schools have the ability to teach both.

Agreed. Creationism is a religious concept, and religious concepts shouldn't be taught in schools. They shouldn't be attacked, either, but public and public-nonpublic forums should be neutral in religious aspects.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:Because we learned and figured all of that out for ourselves. Why should God spoon feed us everything? Rather, we should grow in intelligence over time, and by learning and using science we can figure things out. There's no personal benefit to know everything without working for it. It's like using cheat codes on video games - you can win easily and quickly, but you loose the satisfaction of putting effort into completing your tasks.

I believe that it's not only possible that God created the world in seven days but very likely. Unfortunately the evidence in cosmology is working against us right now. Of course string theory does still allow for the 24/7 model about 10,000 years ago but that's a little stretchy and it also means 24/7 is no longer what it was back then. Which in turn is no longer back then. Most of the evidence on earth also allows for the 10,000 year modle. Things like fossilized trees growing right through multiple layers of prehistoric rock really put a damper on the whole theory. In fact, if it really works that way there shouldn't even be standing fossile trees. Carbon dating is also hugely flawed. Not only is it very inconsistant. It's not even theoretically definitive. It's based on something called "junk science" where a system is devised that returns a large number of possible results and the team selects whatever works best and goes with it.

As you probably know, there are two types of evolution. Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution has been proven to exist and work. But what is macroevolution but microevolution on a larger scale?? If germs can evolve to become stronger over time, why can't kiwi birds loose their wings because they don't need them anymore??

Hmm, why is it that this keeps coming up? I though I shot that one out already. Ok, I'm not very well versed in Bio but I can tell you that all micro evolution is caused by fluxes in dominate and recessive genes. As certain genetic proporties are passed on from the parents the children are slightly different. These occur because of built in leeway in the genetic structure. Now for macro evolution to occur you need a pure genetic mutation. You need to be able to not just alter or bend a written code. You have to be able to add genes or take them away or completely rewrite them. There are thousands of mutations that happen and are possible but all of the recorded ones work against you and are quite often deadly. The only one that has even been argued to make things better is a form of animea that prevents you from getting malaria but causes a host of other problems.

I hate it when people talk about "transitional forms" or "missing links." It does a great disservice to their arguements. According to the theory there is no such thing. We don't evolve, stay at one place for a while and then evolve some more. We are constantly evolving and changing. The problem is, we don't see this in the fossile record. We see thousands of nearly identical fossiles, a huge gap, and then thousands of identical fossiles that look pretty much completely different. I'm not against drawing lines with faith that you're dealing with good science but the lines keep getting redrawn and redrawn and in over a hundred and fifty years we still don't have any solid proof. It's time to get the proof or admit you don't know and that you're basing it on faith anyway which is exactly what you're accusing us of doing.

Now as for teaching in public schools. I don't have a problem with teaching evolution in public schools because for all it's problems it has still not been disproven. In fact, it's still the front running explenation that allows us to be the supreme power in the universe. I would, however, suggest that it be approached as a theory and not a fact like they do now. I would also suggest that they teach other thoeries. Aliens comming to earth and seeding life sounds more viable than evolution to me anyway but that blows holes in the "proof" so evolutionists are keeping that out pretty well. I'm not saying we have to teach creationism but some sorts of intelligent design should also be allowed being as that evolution is not definitive. I also think that textbook should be revised to get rid of all the faulty data. I still see diagrams and pictures that were proven false over fifty years ago. Images that were dorcored by zellous evolutionists desperate for scientific proof or skeletons derived from a single pig tooth to show what the missing link between man and ape looked like. If they want to be taken seriously I think evolutionists should update their data with current studies that support their thoery like... hmm... Well if I think of one I'll let you know.

Bottom line? Don't doctor your data, it's not cool.

Reply to Rackfocus

Thanks for the feedback. As for my credentials, definitely nothing impressive. I am a Corporate Financial Controller in trade (math nerd on the side), have a BA in biblical studies, and a passion for God's Word.

As for the statement that evolution is micro-biology over millions of years, that is absolutely not supported by science. The fossil record is virtually void of these supposed transitional forms of one species evolving into another. Only "evidence" is cartoon pictures written in textbooks. Next, when you look at the macro-evolution model, the theoretical transitional forms would be weaker than the original species and deleted out of the evolutionary chain due to natural selection. This is a very deep discussion that points to one of the many contradictions within the evolutionary theory, and uses the scientific fact that mutations, i.e. not adaptations, do not create stronger but weaker forms of life. I am just giving the "readers digest" version here.

Regarding proof of God, I completely disagree that there is no proof. One of the strongest proofs is the prophecies contained in the Bible which are very detailed and have been 100% accurate. Only if there is a God who is outside of time and all knowing would this be possible. I challenge anyone to give another explanation for these prophecies and their perfect accuracy. If you want to check out some of these absolutely awesome prophecies, then please check the article "Prophecy" at FoundationsForOurFaith.com.

The only reason I brought up the site with the reward for one valid scientific proof of evolution was to point to the fact that though evolutionists like to throw around their theories, when those theories are compared to science they fall apart, every single one of them. Which is why this reward has been offered for around 15 years now, and not was evolutionist has been able to collect on it. This speaks volumes. Note that there are no sites out there they give a reward for evidence of Creation.

Thanks again for the great questions.

Brad

VIP wrote:

I believe that it's not only possible that God created the world in seven days but very likely. Unfortunately the evidence in cosmology is working against us right now.

I was flipping through required reading for Spirituality class, and found an interesting section that pertains to this debate:

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity:

Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at 10:30 tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call 10:30. Every moment from the beginning of the world is always Present for Him. If you like to put it in that way, He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames.

That is difficult, I know. Let me try to give something, not the same, but a bit like it. Suppose I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book and for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all.

God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of the universe any more than an author is hurried along in the imaginary time of his novel. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us. You are as much alone with Him as if you were the only being He had ever created. When Christ died, He died for you individually just as much as if you had been the only man in the world.

There's a lot of great material in this book which actually goes along with a number of debates we have going on, so I'll start to throw that sort of thing out here to see how it works with your beliefs.

Alison wrote:Ok, so i don't know how ya'll feel but I beleive in both. Like, i beleive God created us through the process of evolution.

I can see what you mean, but I completely disagree. "It just might have Felt like a week to God" If you believe in God, you would agree he would not make a mistake like that. He knows how long we think a week is. Also, the Bible goes through each day at a time, agen God would not missed this. I have been watching videos by DR. G Sharp Creation institutution founder ever since he visseted our Church personally. He goes through how people think what you say; he used evolution to creat us. But DR. Sharp goes on saying this is another deception the devil is pushing in to currupt Christian thinking. If you ask me, It took the time a human would think of a week as, 7 days.

As far as Evolution agenst Christianity goes. Evolution is not getting more information, their just twisting old stuff to sound new. Their not winning or holding out, their just persistant at unsettling settled arguements. Evolutionsts even now are completely confused about things like they are wondering how a new dino foscle called leanardo was preserved the way it was, their exsuse was a small local flood, but can not explain it being burried as rapidly as need to focselize it during the mumifying process. (it's pretty cool their finding it's insides on special xray thingys). The flood and quick burryal are obviously caused by Noah's flood, and the catastrofic mud slides. Watch some og DR. Sharp's videos and you'll see what I mean by "catastrofic".

In the end, Evolution dissagrees with science, and science disprooves evolusion. When science can't explain the Bible, BUT the Bible is explaining everything! Icluding how dinosours are foscelized while still decaying. If it were milions of years, it would not have skin, it would not have organs, it would not exist as it does today.

I'm sorry if this might've already been said, but I had no time to read through, even though I had alot to say...

There is evidence of massive localized floods everywhere. In England, the black sea. Asia, Africa. And they all happened at about the same time.

I never said there was no such thing as small floods. Infact once my neighborhood was flooded in a foot of water. (When I lived in Oregon) So I never said no such thing as small floods.

Massive floods across large areas of countries is hardly on the same scale as a foot of water in the road, wouldn't you agree?

You must understand, Pirate92, that for God time is not applicable. Think of God as an author, and our world as a book. He can contemplate how the story might go, and end one paragraph at one point in time, and start the next millions of years later. But He is out of the time frame as we see it. It's much more sensible for us to comprehend that things took a while to happen, rather than that on a Monday 10,000 years ago there was no Earth, and then by Sunday BAM! Everything was there. It just doesn't work. And if you say a week is a week, as the Bible says, then you will also have to agree that the world is only 10,000 years old - that was the understanding of those who wrote it. And plenty of artifacts and fossils will blow that theory of yours out of the water, I think. Am I wrong?

Not really. Carbon dating is ridiculously flawed but it's the only way to gauge the age of terrestrial objects. Most people cite evidence in cosmology for age of the universe.

Neighborhood Studios wrote:Massive floods across large areas of countries is hardly on the same scale as a foot of water in the road, wouldn't you agree?

What? Now I'm confused, somewhare here there's some miscommunication...

What? Now I'm confused, somewhare here there's some miscommunication...

VIP stated that there is proof of massive localized flooding worldwide at the same time. You took that to mean a small flood, using an example of your neighborhood getting 1 foot of rain.

VIP was at one extreme of flooding, while you responded with the opposite extreme. The biblical flood was not a "small flood" as you implied.

Carbon dating is ridiculously flawed but it's the only way to gauge the age of terrestrial objects.

I wouldn't say "ridiculously" flawed.

Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.

While it's definitely possible to be off by decades or centuries, once you start dating objects to be 30,000+ years old, a few years here or there still prove the point that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old - thus proving that for God time doesn't work the way it does for us.