• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Why are Christians embracing Evolution?

DLH

Member
Wow. There must be a whole discussion going on between us that I am utterly unaware of.

That isn't an explanation that I'm at all willing to casually dismiss. In fact I've suggested it on more than one occasion.

How does the speed of light mean that the Bible's account cannot mean six days?

We wouldn't be able to see the light from a star that was 9 million light years away for another 9 million years minus 144 hours.
 

marke

Well-known member
Those of us who are scientific by nature and education, do not appreciate being lumped in with those Christians who believe in evolution. While I believe in an old Earth and old universe, do not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation of creation.
The earth and universe are old - at least 6,000 years old.
 

marke

Well-known member
I believe in a young earth and an extremely old universe because God has already existed for an eternity. In other words no matter how many years you speculate as the age of the universe I believe in an even older universe because I believe in God and His word.
Earth and the heavens were created by God in less than 7 days.
 

marke

Well-known member
What 'sinks' Darwinism is lack of proof. For example, radiometric dating of rocks. What if not every pop is detected?
Radiometric dating has serious shortcomings. For example, assumptions must be made that cannot be proven, such as the amount of radioactive decay that existed in the rock at its creation. There are other assumptions also that may be wrong which could radically alter the dates derived from the flawed process.
 

marke

Well-known member
People think the evidence looks good. Finding a lambda for carbon-14 is much easier than with rock isotopes. It's bad science used to intimidate the theists.
Radiometric dating is not absolute and does not result in irrefutable ages of samples tested.

Radioactivity, in radioactive-decay processes, the number of disintegrations per second, or the number of unstable atomic nuclei that decay per second in a given sample. Activity is determined by counting, with the aid of radiation detectors and electronic circuits, the number of particles and photons (pulses of electromagnetic energy) ejected from a radioactive material during a convenient time interval. This experimental count, however, must be interpreted in the light of a thorough knowledge of the particular manner of radioactive decay in the sample material, because some sources emit more than one particle or photon per disintegration.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That isn't an explanation that I'm at all willing to casually dismiss. In fact I've suggested it on more than one occasion.

I don't read every post of yours. :) I've read all your ones to me.

We wouldn't be able to see the light from a star that was 9 million light years away for another 9 million years minus 144 hours.

You're not getting it. The Bible says "six days." You say that it cannot mean what it plainly says. Finding what might even be a valid scientific objection does not show that the Bible cannot mean "six days." They best it could do would be to show that the Bible is wrong.
 

DLH

Member
I don't read every post of yours. :) I've read all your ones to me.

I refer only to the posts I've made directly to you.

You're not getting it. The Bible says "six days." You say that it cannot mean what it plainly says. Finding what might even be a valid scientific objection does not show that the Bible cannot mean "six days." They best it could do would be to show that the Bible is wrong.

I've told you everything you need to know and you never respond with anything other than the Bible says six days. When the Bible says something you can't assume that it means what it says. In this case it does mean what it says but it doesn't mean what you say what it says that means.

Day is not limited to 24 hours. I worked the day shift 5 days a week in those days. That is an example of the English word day being used three different ways. 1 meaning a few hours. 2 meaning a literal 24 hours and 3 meaning an indeterminate time that could be any number of years given within a narrative. Two of those don't mean a literal 24 hour period.

The Hebrew word yohm, which is translated day, is used the same way. Exactly. At Zechariah 14:8 the word day means summer and winter. Proverb 25:13 uses the word to mean harvest season, consisting of many days. (Genesis 30:14). Ezekiel 38:14, 16 uses it to mean a long time. At Isaiah 49:8 the word means thousands of years. At Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24 the Greek hemera uses day to mean many years.

What those mean is that the word is used for various times. A few hours to time indefinite. A day can mean 24 hours or billions of years. Eternity.

The question then becomes which meaning does the creation account of Genesis use? It uses all three the same as my example of working the dayshift above. At Genesis 2:4 it says: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." So, then, by your logic does that mean the earth and heaven were made in not six days but one? You see? It says it right there. You aren't getting your literal interpretation from what the Bible says. You're getting it from the traditional dogma that comes from the dark ages when they thought night and day came from miasmas from the earth and sky.

Another example of this dark ages influence is better documented. Rain. The writers of the Bible described the hydrologic cycle straightforward and accurate. But in the dark ages they thought that the atmosphere was a metal bowl covering the earth with sluice holes to let the rain in. Bible dictionaries had illustrations of this dome and that's what everyone from the dark ages thought. Case closed.

Now idiot atheists - and all atheists are idiots - think how foolish the Bible is because of some ignorant Bible scholars. Ignorant of what the Bible actually said while they dogmatically propagated what they thought scientifically.

You have to get rid of all of that and focus on what it says upon closer examination.

Your literal interpretation has the universe being created without light for grass to grow and light traveling from galaxy GN-z11, 32.1 billion light years away taking about 6,000 years instead of 13.4 billion years to reach the Hubble Space telescope.

We currently divide the day into just two parts? Morning and evening? I don't think so. How many parts did the ancient Hebrews divide their days into?

When was the sabbath to be observed? From evening to evening. What was in between?

1. The morning twilight (morning darkness) before the daylight; 1 Samuel 30:17

2. The dawn; Job 3:9

3. The morning; Genesis 24:54

4. Noon or midday; Deuteronomy 28:29; 1 Kings 18:27

5. The sunset; Joshua 8:29

6. The evening twilight (evening darkness); 2 Kings 7:7

So, Morning twilight, dawn, morning, noon, sunset, and evening twilight.

But what about me? Maybe I'm as ignorant as those lunatic theologians in dark age or the modern day pathologically narrow minded atheists of today! I promise you. I am. And so are you. But we carry on as if we're not.

Me. About me. Do I have a problem with Almighty God, Jehovah, possibly having created the life, the universe and everything in just 6 or even 1 day? I do not. If he can create the universe who am I to place limitations on his abilities as I am able to perceive them? Unless I have good reason to think that his word, the Bible, says that's the way it was done.

Do I have a problem with traditional theology as known in the modern world? Well, yes. It comes from Greek philosophy, mostly, like the theory of evolution itself. BUT! If it can demonstrate the Bible says six literal days, 144 hours, then kudos to them. I believe it. That hasn't been the case. And if any of y'all are representatives of that school of thought you have remarkable success only in that you believe it. And are able to repeat it.

One of which, the Paster, or one who pastes @Clete uses Exodus 20:11; 31:17 as support of a literal six days, but just because the week model was based upon the days of creation 1. Doesn't make it a literal 24 hour period because that would be a contradiction of Genesis 2:4, which states it was only one day. 2. Because the Bible often uses models like that in a figurative sense, like with the 40 days turning into 40 years wandering in the wilderness, and 3. Because the Hebrew perfect (bara/created) and imperfect (asah/made) don't allow for a literal 24 hour interpretation. Neither does science. Like the sluice holes of the dark ages it just makes the Bible look stupid.

Not just because science is infallible. Science is, more often then not, stupid as well. And it isn't evidence, reason and logic that dictates stupid theology and science. It's Semmelweis Reflex.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We wouldn't be able to see the light from a star that was 9 million light years away for another 9 million years minus 144 hours.
Consider that you are God and you want or need stars to be seen immediately at creation. Would you wait 13 gazillion years or do something else?

Consider also that not only light, but matter, is both a particle and a wave. Knowing that, stretching out the heavens doesn't carry with it the conventional problems we think with Newtonian physics, but allows for stretching information instead of moving gazillions of stars faster than the speed of light in a day.

And this is consistent with the evidence we have from astronomy, geology, biology, and all the rest of the scientific disciplines. And "by consistent with" I mean the scientific evidence we have tends to show young ages of the solar system, the earth, and life.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
... We wouldn't be able to see the light from a star that was 9 million light years away for another 9 million years minus 144 hours.
You're begging the question that the world is as old as it looks. You're also begging the question that it looks old, which is something I agree with, but it's apart from whether it actually is as old as it looks like it is.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I've told you everything you need to know.

I'll be the judge of that.

You never respond with anything other than the Bible says six days.

Guess what? The Bible does indeed say "six days."

When the Bible says something you can't assume that it means what it says.
Of course you can.

In this case it does mean what it says but it doesn't mean what you say what it says that means.

My head hurts.

Two of those don't mean a literal 24 hour period.
And one of them does.

Hebrew word yohm, which is translated day, is used the same way. Exactly. At Zechariah 14:8 the word day means summer and winter. Proverb 25:13 uses the word to mean harvest season, consisting of many days. (Genesis 30:14). Ezekiel 38:14, 16 uses it to mean a long time. At Isaiah 49:8 the word means thousands of years. At Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24 it uses day to mean many years.

And in Genesis it means six days with evening and morning.



So, then, by your logic does that mean the earth and heaven were made in not six days but one?

What logic?

It says it right there. You aren't getting your literal interpretation from what the Bible says. You're getting it from the traditional dogma that comes from the dark ages when they thought night and day came from miasmas from the earth and sky.

"I don't like this tiger. He reads minds."

Your literal interpretation has the universe being created without light for grass to grow
No, it doesn't.

The Bible says that light was there on day 1.

We currently divide the day into just two parts? Morning and evening? I don't think so.

You think that when Genesis says "evening and morning," that means no other time can exist?

Why?
 

marke

Well-known member
I refer only to the posts I've made directly to you.



I've told you everything you need to know and you never respond with anything other than the Bible says six days. When the Bible says something you can't assume that it means what it says. In this case it does mean what it says but it doesn't mean what you say what it says that means.

Day is not limited to 24 hours. I worked the day shift 5 days a week in those days. That is an example of the English word day being used three different ways. 1 meaning a few hours. 2 meaning a literal 24 hours and 3 meaning an indeterminate time that could be any number of years given within a narrative. Two of those don't mean a literal 24 hour period.

The Hebrew word yohm, which is translated day, is used the same way. Exactly. At Zechariah 14:8 the word day means summer and winter. Proverb 25:13 uses the word to mean harvest season, consisting of many days. (Genesis 30:14). Ezekiel 38:14, 16 uses it to mean a long time. At Isaiah 49:8 the word means thousands of years. At Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24 it uses day to mean many years.

What those mean is that the word is used for various times. A few hours to time indefinite. A day can mean 24 hours or billions of years. Eternity.

The question then becomes which meaning does the creation account of Genesis use? It uses all three the same as my example of working the dayshift above. At Genesis 2:4 it says: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." So, then, by your logic does that mean the earth and heaven were made in not six days but one? You see? It says it right there. You aren't getting your literal interpretation from what the Bible says. You're getting it from the traditional dogma that comes from the dark ages when they thought night and day came from miasmas from the earth and sky.

Another example of this dark ages influence is better documented. Rain. The writers of the Bible described the hydrologic cycle straightforward and accurate. But in the dark ages they thought that the atmosphere was a metal bowl covering the earth with sluice holes to let the rain in. Bible dictionaries had illustrations of this dome and that's what everyone from the dark ages thought. Case closed.

Now idiot atheists - and all atheists are idiots - think how foolish the Bible is because of some ignorant Bible scholars. Ignorant of what the Bible actually said while they dogmatically propagated what they thought scientifically.

You have to get rid of all of that and focus on what it says upon closer examination.

Your literal interpretation has the universe being created without light for grass to grow and light traveling from galaxy GN-z11, 32.1 billion light years away taking about 6,000 years instead of 13.4 billion years to reach the Hubble Space telescope.

We currently divide the day into just two parts? Morning and evening? I don't think so. How many parts did the ancient Hebrews divide their days into?

When was the sabbath to be observed? From evening to evening. What was in between?

1. The morning twilight (morning darkness) before the daylight; 1 Samuel 30:17

2. The dawn; Job 3:9

3. The morning; Genesis 24:54

4. Noon or midday; Deuteronomy 28:29; 1 Kings 18:27

5. The sunset; Joshua 8:29

6. The evening twilight (evening darkness); 2 Kings 7:7

So, Morning twilight, dawn, morning, noon, sunset, and evening twilight.

But what about me? Maybe I'm as ignorant as those lunatic theologians in dark age or the modern day pathologically narrow minded atheists of today! I promise you. I am. And so are you. But we carry on as if we're not.

Me. About me. Do I have a problem with Almighty God, Jehovah, possibly having created the life, the universe and everything in just 6 or even 1 day? I do not. If he can create the universe who am I to place limitations on his abilities as I am able to perceive them? Unless I have good reason to think that his word, the Bible, says that's the way it was done.

Do I have a problem with traditional theology as known in the modern world? Well, yes. It comes from Greek philosophy, mostly, like the theory of evolution itself. BUT! If it can demonstrate the Bible says six literal days, 144 hours, then kudos to them. I believe it. That hasn't been the case. And if any of y'all are representatives of that school of thought you have remarkable success only in that you believe it. And are able to repeat it.

One of which, the Paster, or one who pastes @Clete uses Exodus 20:11; 31:17 as support of a literal six days, but just because the week model was based upon the days of creation 1. Doesn't make it a literal 24 hour period because that would be a contradiction of Genesis 2:4, which states it was only one day. 2. Because the Bible often uses models like that in a figurative sense, like with the 40 days turning into 40 years wandering in the wilderness, and 3. Because the Hebrew perfect (bara/created) and imperfect (asah/made) don't allow for a literal 24 hour interpretation. Neither does science. Like the sluice holes of the dark ages it just makes the Bible look stupid.

Not just because science is infallible. Science is, more often then not, stupid as well. And it isn't evidence, reason and logic that dictates stupid theology and science. It's Semmelweis Reflex.
The earth has rotated as it has revolved around the sun since God established that motion and order in the week of creation. The earth revolves in 24 hours, making 24 hours the length of 1 day.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But a third grader wouldn't be so obtuse to suggest it meant anything.
It means what it says.
Do you even read what I say?
Yes.
God also gave Israel 40 years to wander in the wilderness. For 40 days.
I read what you post, even though it does not make sense often times.
Your literal interpretation doesn't account for the seventh day continuing to this day.
False.
(Psalm 95:7, 8, 11; Hebrews 4:1-11; 2 Peter 3:8) A day is a thousand years to God is an expression, just like a thousand years is to God like a watch in the night, which is only 4 hours. (Psalm 90:4) Is a day only 4 hours?
You can try to support your nonsense. But many of us are not going to fall for it.

SIX DAYS to WORK (and one day to rest) was modeled on the SIX DAYS of creation.

P.S. Clearly you do not understand figures of speech.
 

DLH

Member
You're begging the question that the world is as old as it looks. You're also begging the question that it looks old, which is something I agree with, but it's apart from whether it actually is as old as it looks like it is.

What?! I don't think I am, if I understand what you are saying exactly. Does "the world" look old to me? No. The terms for earth and world are varied, though. Strictly speaking there are, among others, two distinct differences for what is sometimes called the world and the earth. Both words are applied in different ways, but generally the world is the system of things of which Satan is the god. It was founded upon the blood of Abel. The world is the systems of society. Commerce, politics, religion. The world is only 6,000 years old and it will be destroyed. The earth was created to and will last forever. How old does it look? I have no idea. It could look to be old or young. I don't care what it looks like to me. The topic is evolution, and thus the age of the earth and heavens. How they look to me I don't consider relevant. HOWEVER, the Bible indicates the earth is quite possibly very old. Light speed concurs. I have no reason to doubt it.
 

DLH

Member
Consider that you are God and you want or need stars to be seen immediately at creation. Would you wait 13 gazillion years or do something else?

Ah, but you see, he didn't. Also. My math was WAY off there. Just so you know.

Consider also that not only light, but matter, is both a particle and a wave. Knowing that, stretching out the heavens doesn't carry with it the conventional problems we think with Newtonian physics, but allows for stretching information instead of moving gazillions of stars faster than the speed of light in a day.

And this is consistent with the evidence we have from astronomy, geology, biology, and all the rest of the scientific disciplines. And "by consistent with" I mean the scientific evidence we have tends to show young ages of the solar system, the earth, and life.

There it is again! What is that?! Do you hear that?! That stretching sound . . . . At least you didn't heap a steaming gob of paste on my ungrateful crown. For that, I thank you. Also for the avatar, which I like. Is that an Ent? Rip Van Winkle? That guy in the Oakridge Boys? Nebuchadnezzar?

What were we talking about? Ah! Stretching, as in the imagination, no?

Let's look at the paste holding this thing all together, huh? A long an arduous journey stretches before us, my old friend [looks at watch] but for you? I will guide us through the theology. [sighs heavily]

Let's Dance!

Clete said:
* RSR's Lists of 24-Hour Indicators, and Gap Theory & Day Age Consequences: Below, see our list of Indicators of the 24-Hour Creation Days. Below that, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams, discuss the Gap Theory claim that the Bible indicates that a long period of time passed between the first two verses of Genesis. There they list the unexpected consequences that typically go along with acceptance of that alleged gap. They also briefly list the unexpected consequences of the Day Age Theory. The claim that the creation days were long periods of time has implications that are not always immediately obvious to those considering that position. (See that list immediately below this paragraph.) So, what isn't always presented upfront is that as supporters of the Gap or Day-Age theories try to maintain old-earth creation views, they then must rearrange the order of those days (since their theory requires the existence of the Sun before Day 4; etc.). Gap theorists also tend to reject that there were no thorns before Adam's sin, Noah's global flood, etc. Christian denominations, universities, and other organizations that adopt the Day-Age theory tend to reject all of that and even that the languages originated at Babel, and they tend to reject the Exodus, Jericho's supernatural fall, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, etc. For the vast majority of Christian groups that make what looks like just a small interpretative adjustment in Genesis 1, trying then to be consistent with that adjustment leads these Christian institutions to reject many seemingly unrelated and plain historical passages in Scripture. Further, accepting an old earth interpretation of the Bible appears to lead to disinterest in, and even outright rejection of, the many fascinating corroborating archaeological and scientific discoveries that affirm the Bible as God's Word.

Doesn't that look like fun! First of all, for clarification, what I suggest between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a gap of indeterminate time but I don't subscribe to the nonsensical Gap Theory. As is pointed out above, it doesn't fit. There is a gap but it doesn't result in the anomalies suggested by the theory itself.

I went over the rejections of List of Day-Age Theory Consequences (whatever that is) and reject none of them.

As for the List of Indicators of 24-Hour Creation Days posted by @Clete, I will have to take a break and get back to that. It looks like there is going to be problems with interpretation there. I've been posting responses to others while doing this in another tab and I already have 3 more waiting for me. My eyes are bugging out.
 
Top