Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[ReformedBaptist]

A 24 hour day is one revolution around the sun, is it not? So then...it makes sense that we can safely presume that the first 24 hour day would've been after the universe (sun, stars, planets) was created...which was day four.

I think from that point on we can look at what we know about 24 hours and say after day four they were 24 hour days. Before then...maybe they were...maybe they weren't. We can only speculate....but there was no Sun for the earth to revolve around, so how can we be certain it was 24 hours??

Again...maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

Well, one earth revolution around the sun is a year. The earth only has to revolve once for a 24 hour period. Nor, biblically, did the sun need to exist for this...just light. And light was created before the sun, biblically.

 

[dan e.]

Well, one earth revolution around the sun is a year. QUOTE]

I'm getting mixed up in my thinking then.

 

[lbaker]

I am curious - is there any kind of Creation Science to back up a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? For instance, is there scientific evidence for:

1. Earth being created before any other planets, stars, etc. and then existing for some unknown period of time just sort of hanging out there in space covered with water with no gravity from other bodies to hold it in place.

2. Light without any stars or other planets or moons. If so, where is this source of light today?

3. Plants growing on the Earth without sunlight.

4. Some sort of physical "vault" that separates layers of water in the sky and also contains the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets? Seems like the astronauts would have bumped into this barrier on their way to the moon.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am curious - is there any kind of Creation Science to back up a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? For instance, is there scientific evidence for:

1. Earth being created before any other planets, stars, etc. and then existing for some unknown period of time just sort of hanging out there in space covered with water with no gravity from other bodies to hold it in place.

2. Light without any stars or other planets or moons. If so, where is this source of light today?

3. Plants growing on the Earth without sunlight.

4. Some sort of physical "vault" that separates layers of water in the sky and also contains the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets? Seems like the astronauts would have bumped into this barrier on their way to the moon.

Interpreting scripture by using mans faulty science as the standard for truth is not interpreting scripture at all. Scripture is the source and standard by which we should obtain our view of science. Mans science is faulty and ever changing. Scirpture is reliable forever. (literally)

 

[Amy.G]

I am curious - is there any kind of Creation Science to back up a literal interpretation of Genesis 1?

Check out THIS

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I am curious - is there any kind of Creation Science to back up a literal interpretation of Genesis 1? For instance, is there scientific evidence for:

1. Earth being created before any other planets, stars, etc. and then existing for some unknown period of time just sort of hanging out there in space covered with water with no gravity from other bodies to hold it in place.

2. Light without any stars or other planets or moons. If so, where is this source of light today?

3. Plants growing on the Earth without sunlight.

4. Some sort of physical "vault" that separates layers of water in the sky and also contains the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets? Seems like the astronauts would have bumped into this barrier on their way to the moon.

Before I work through some answers to your questions, are you expectiing purely naturalistic answers or is a Divine Foot allowed in the door?

 

[lbaker]

Before I work through some answers to your questions, are you expectiing purely naturalistic answers or is a Divine Foot allowed in the door?

Hmmmm, well now that's a question for sure.

Okay, here's an example of what I'm looking for vs. what I'm not looking for, using the question about light:

Something like - "evidence from such and such observatory shows there was a big cloud of glowing gas in the vicinity of the Earth some time before the Sun and Stars came into being" is what I'm looking for.

Not something like - "well, God just provided a light because the Bible says so".

Hope that makes sense.

BTW - I do believe there was a very big divine foot in the door, even if it all happened billions of years ago. ;-)

 

[Amy.G]

I just really do not understand these doubts about the 6 day creation account coming from Christians. Why is it so hard to just believe what the Bible says? To say that "the evening and the morning" is anything other than a normal day, is to twist scripture to mean something you want it to mean. And all for the purpose of WHAT?
These are the type questions that come from unbelievers, not those who belielve the word of God.

 

[Amy.G]

Not something like - "well, God just provided a light because the Bible says so".

And therein lies your problem. You're looking for human answers to prove the truth of the Bible.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not something like - "well, God just provided a light because the Bible says so".

Hope that makes sense.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.:thumbs:

 

[lbaker]

I just really do not understand these doubts about the 6 day creation account coming from Christians. Why is it so hard to just believe what the Bible says? To say that "the evening and the morning" is anything other than a normal day, is to twist scripture to mean something you want it to mean. And all for the purpose of WHAT?
These are the type questions that come from unbelievers, not those who belielve the word of God.

Amy,

There are many, many, Christians out there who aren't able to agree with a literal six 24 hour day Creation 6,000 years ago. The same science that convicts me that God is so much bigger than I had imagined also makes it difficult to take the Genesis account as a literal scientific account.

Les

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,

There are many, many, Christians out there who aren't able to agree with a literal six 24 hour day Creation 6,000 years ago. The same science that convicts me that God is so much bigger than I had imagined also makes it difficult to take the Genesis account as a literal scientific account.

Les

Do you need science to prove to you that Jesus is God?

 

[lbaker]

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.:thumbs:

So are you saying that there is no scientific evidence to support your views?

 

[lbaker]

Do you need science to prove to you that Jesus is God?

Technically speaking, yes. That's what all the miracles and Resurrection were about. Proving Who and What He was. If we didn't have written accounts from eyewitnesses His claims would be much less believeable today.

 

[Revmitchell]

So are you saying that there is no scientific evidence to support your views?

No. There is plenty of scientific evidence. But the abundance or lack of it has no bearing on the reliability of scripture. I don't need to change how I see scripture because of unreliable man made science that changes almost as fast as computer technology. Yesterdays planet is todays ice ball. But I do need to change how I see science based on what scripture tells me.

 

[lbaker]

There is plenty of scientific evidence.

Okay, could you please show it to me, especially about the four items I asked about earlier?

Thanks,

Les

 

[Revmitchell]

Technically speaking, yes. That's what all the miracles and Resurrection were about. Proving Who and What He was. If we didn't have written accounts from eyewitnesses His claims would be much less believeable today.

Using science to interpret scripture is a far cry from testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection. Apples and Oranges.

 

[lbaker]

Using science to interpret scripture is a far cry from testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection. Apples and Oranges.

Not necessarily. Both are based on observable facts or occurences.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not necessarily. Both are based on observable facts or occurences.

This is an over simplification. The resurrection testimony is based on actually seeing it first hand. What we are talking about with creation is observation of clues (so to speak) of what happened.

So long as we stick with the testimony of the resurrection as was given by the actual eye witnesses we need not gather clues. Along the same line so long as we stick to the words of the one who did the creating we need not depend on clues as well.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Technically speaking, yes. That's what all the miracles and Resurrection were about. Proving Who and What He was. If we didn't have written accounts from eyewitnesses His claims would be much less believeable today.

I'm going to use this quote to talk about your epistomological question.

lbaker, I am glad that you appear to me to be an inconsistent believer in science. lol Your asking for naturalistic explainations for miracles. Jesus being God is not hard to believe when you know that He rose again from the dead.

What naturualistic process observed by the five senses (operational science) would remotely suggest to you that living beings, human or otherwise, could come back to life after several days of death? We are not talking about CPR here!

What is my point here? That science being defined as science under the a priori commitment to the philosophy of naturalism/materialism leads only to atheism. Afterall, its atheistic to begin with. Let me explain what I mean.

Scientists observe mutation in genetics, or variation in a specie, natural selection, et. and then must make an interpretation of their data/evidence. What is undergirding their interpretation? If they have a prior committment to an explaination being purely naturalistic, will the evidence every lead them to conclude design such that there is a Designer? Of course not.

Then what in the world is Darwinism? In my opinion, an assumption at best. If the axioms of science are truly applied, testability, observation, repeatability...where has this evolution been observed? Some Darwinists like to point to speciation, or adaption, or mutation as evolution. But an astute observer won't be duped by that kind of bait and switch.

One cannot call something science because of one's assumption. Evolutionists are notorious for present the observed evidence of adaptation (which they call microevolution) to make their case of macroevolution. Or more common, they present Adaptation/Variation as macroevolution.

Is this happening also with the age of earth? I believe so.

I say all this to say that creation science has much to contribute to an interpretation of the observed world, and I believe a far more reasonable explaination than darwinism. But it must not be unjustly shoved into an atheistic assumption.

Take a look at their research. Look at the work regarding flood geology. Imagine what science is presented when a global flood is assumed...or allowed. Has modern geology limited itself in explaining the fossil record because it won't allow a global flood? I have heard their claim that there is no evidence for a global flood....but no explaination of it. Others say there is evidence everywhere in the world of a massive, cataclysmic flood, where such a tumult may have also caused the eruption of many volcanoes. Is there any evidence on earth of large bodies of water under the earth having been broken open?

These are the things other others like it that creation science offers.