Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

For starters, I never said the days were NOT 24 hours long. One happened after the other, but no indication of how many other days passed getting from one day to the next. If it is true that the earth is slowing down/speeding up or whatever the case may be, then, sure the days may not have been what we know now as 24 hours. They may have been half as long for all we really know.

Assuming gap theory:

God created the heavens and the earth. For reasons partially unknown to us, the heavens and the earth were destroyed. Begin Verse 2.

We have evidence of possible asteroid or comet collision together with possible volcanic activity covering the entire planet. Day and night were created by the rotation of the earth together with the sun, OR if the sun existed prior to this rebirth, the earth was covered such that no light shown through the atmosphere and the appearance was that of eternal night. Over time, volcanic ash or asteroid debris would have gradually settled out of the atmosphere such that "night" and "day" would appear, though celestial light-proucing objects still would have been obscured. The light could be sufficient to produce vegetation during this time, and further clearing of the skies would have revealed the sun, the moon, and the stars. The fourth day.

It really is quite simple.

(sorry, 'keet, if I'm preaching to the choir!)

That's okay, it's been a while. I read something similar in a Smith's Bible Dictionary over a decade ago. They only presented the one interpretation of Genesis though even though at that time I already had heard the others. There's the 24hr days of earth rotation with respect to an arbitrary point, there's gap, day age, literary framework, and theistic evolution which basically assumes a pick and choose attitude rather than having a method of interpretation.

I am continually amazed at the incredible contortions and distortions of logic that are necessary in order to convince oneself that a literal reading of Genesis can somehow be reconciled with the evidence of the physical world. The bottom line is that much evidence has to be ignored and the rest denied or distorted in order for that world view to be supported, and it still ain't!

That doesn't mean that the Bible isn't true, only that a literal reading of Genesis is NOT supported by the evidence of the physical world. Some people automatically assume that means the Bible isn't true, or that there is a massive conspiracy of evil atheist scientists concerning any evidence that contradicts a Biblical literalist viewpoint. Others think the evidence (such as fossils) were planted by Satan, or by God to test our faith. Believe whatever you want, but until there is ANY scientific evidence to support your view don't try to force that view into public school science classrooms.

Every argument I've ever seen used by creationists against evolution has been debunked long ago, many times. Most of these arguments are either based on ignorance or misinformation about what evidence exists, other arguments are based on ignorance or misinformation about what science is and how it works, and some arguments don't even apply to evolution at all but deal with cosmology or abiogenesis. Come up with some new material folks, instead of blindly parroting what you read on creationist web sites.

Such web sites bring no honor to Christ if they can easily be shown to be full of distortions and lies, do they? And again, to reemphasize, by creationists I do NOT mean one who believes in a Creator (although that is one of the favorite false dichotomies put forward by the anti-evolution crowd who say accepting the fact of evolution automatically means one must be rejecting God). By creationists I mean the Young Earth Creationists who limit God by insisting their human understanding of His words is how He MUST have created.

One thing that is rather intriguing is the notion that some have that all one has to do to debunk anything is to speak in opposition of it.

Also, what is all this rampage about keeping the sacred public schools pure of the evils of creationism? Public schools be damned, as they aren't even about education anyway.

WRONG! Perhaps some people do have that notion, but I am not one of them.

Something is thoroughly debunked if a lot of hard physical evidence clearly contradicts it and none supports it. Also, if in addition to that, it can be shown that there are fatal flaws in its assumptions, and that it is based on misinformation, misquotations, and distortions. The amazing thing about creationists is that somehow they are able to ignore this and they continue spouting the same b.s. year after year, decade after decade, anyway. The difference with scientists is that once an idea is debunked, no matter how cherished it may be or important to anyone's world view, it is discarded. Scientists will not knowingly spread untruth. THAT is what offends me most about this controversy, that the creationists try to claim the moral high ground yet they are the ones ignoring, denying or distorting the truth. This can be easily checked by anyone with an internet connection. Nobody has to take my word on it. Evolution is a fact of nature just as much as gravity or electricity, no matter how many nutters spread lies and distortions about it.

I am not opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, in philosophy or sociology classrooms where it belongs. It does NOT belong in science classrooms, and to say otherwise shows abysmal ignorance of what science is and how it works. If anyone seriously thinks that the evidence supports young earth creationism as much as evolution, they are seriously misinformed about this subject. Try checking actual sources against what creationist web sites claim. You will be amazed at the duplicity and ignorance of those who claim to be representing the side of God.